PCWorld Forums

PCWorld Forums: Quad Processor for gaming? - PCWorld Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Quad Processor for gaming?

#1 User is offline   nishanth12 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 26-July 09

Posted 31 July 2009 - 11:38 PM

which quad core processor is good for gaming and suits my budget 240$?please send me a like to buy it.
0

#2 User is offline   uqpk443 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 11-February 08

Posted 15 September 2009 - 11:18 AM

View Postnishanth12, on 31 July 2009 - 11:38 PM, said:

which quad core processor is good for gaming and suits my budget 240$?please send me a like to buy it.

Sounds more like a dual core budget. I just put together a budget build AMD X4 955 Black series system and the proc. and MB was $320.
Runs great though.
0

#3 User is offline   quackadilly 

  • Expert
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,858
  • Joined: 23-April 09

Posted 15 September 2009 - 11:24 AM

View Postnishanth12, on 31 July 2009 - 11:38 PM, said:

which quad core processor is good for gaming and suits my budget 240$?please send me a like to buy it.


Need more information.



CPU and motherboard?

Just CPU? What socket?
0

#4 User is offline   uqpk443 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 11-February 08

Posted 15 September 2009 - 11:35 AM

View Postquackadilly, on 15 September 2009 - 11:24 AM, said:

View Postnishanth12, on 31 July 2009 - 11:38 PM, said:

which quad core processor is good for gaming and suits my budget 240$?please send me a like to buy it.


Need more information.



CPU and motherboard?

Just CPU? What socket?

I just looked and naturally prices drop quickly.
I bought this motherboard socket AM3, GIGABYTE GA-MA790X-UD4P $110 from new egg
and AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Deneb 3.2GHz 4 x 512KB L2 Cache 6MB L3 Cache Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor now listed for $189.
with the software included in the box you can get 3.8 GHz out of this processor, I bump mine up to 3.6 by just changing the multiplier and never have an issue, with the factory cooling it never gets over 50C. A good cooler would be better.
toss 4GB of dual channel ram in there for around $50 and I am using a ATI 4850 video card getting over 100fps in COD.
0

#5 User is offline   quackadilly 

  • Expert
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,858
  • Joined: 23-April 09

Posted 15 September 2009 - 01:19 PM

View Postuqpk443, on 15 September 2009 - 11:35 AM, said:

I just looked and naturally prices drop quickly.
I bought this motherboard socket AM3, GIGABYTE GA-MA790X-UD4P $110 from new egg
and AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Deneb 3.2GHz 4 x 512KB L2 Cache 6MB L3 Cache Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor now listed for $189.
with the software included in the box you can get 3.8 GHz out of this processor, I bump mine up to 3.6 by just changing the multiplier and never have an issue, with the factory cooling it never gets over 50C. A good cooler would be better.
toss 4GB of dual channel ram in there for around $50 and I am using a ATI 4850 video card getting over 100fps in COD.


Nice! That looks like a pretty cheap way to get into a pretty decent gaming rig.
0

#6 User is offline   techie4fun 

  • Expert
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,532
  • Joined: 18-October 06

Posted 18 September 2009 - 07:58 AM

View Postuqpk443, on 15 September 2009 - 11:35 AM, said:

A good cooler would be better.
toss 4GB of dual channel ram in there for around $50 and I am using a ATI 4850 video card getting over 100fps in COD.


You can always buy a better cooling fan later if you decide the stock fan isn't good enough.
0

#7 User is offline   Gokuson123 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 19
  • Joined: 26-October 09

Posted 27 October 2009 - 03:17 AM

What games are able to use 4 cores now? I was unaware any had been developed for 4 cores let alone 64 bit. I think you should put that money to a good dual core system for games, since the 2 of the 4 cores will be letting your GPU do the rendering anyway =) Having a fast SSD disk with good read times will probably be more beneficial as well.
0

#8 User is offline   waldojim 

  • Elite
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 16,412
  • Joined: 29-October 08
  • Location:Texas

Posted 27 October 2009 - 01:36 PM

View PostGokuson123, on 27 October 2009 - 03:17 AM, said:

What games are able to use 4 cores now? I was unaware any had been developed for 4 cores let alone 64 bit. I think you should put that money to a good dual core system for games, since the 2 of the 4 cores will be letting your GPU do the rendering anyway =) Having a fast SSD disk with good read times will probably be more beneficial as well.


and truth be told - a quad at 3.6 VS a dual core at 3.6 which is faster?
A. They are both the same speed, just the quad lets you DO more.
This is being quoted from another forum:

Quote


All major next generation game engines will support multithreading. Even though I will mention some current heavy hitters and near future most anticipated games, keep in mind these are only few of many to come.

1. Source engine; Games like Half-Life 2 and others based on the Source engine.
2. Crytek 2 engine; Starting with Crysis and all upcoming titles.
3. Supreme Commander
4. Unreal 3 engine; Starting with Unreal III and all upcoming titles.
5. Splinter Cell: Double Agent; So will all future Splinter Cell games.
6. Hellgate: London
7. Alan Wake
8. Id Tech 5; Id's new engine.

If anyone knows more engines/titles, let me know! :)

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" -- Isaac Asimov

Steam Machine: MSI 970A-G46, AMD Phenom 955 @ 4.0Ghz, 8GB Gskill ram @1600mhz, 128GB Plextor M5s, EVGA GTX 550Ti
Laptop: Alienware 14, Intel i7-4700MQ, 8GB DDR3 ram, Nvidia GTX 765M 4GB DDR5, Plextor M3 256GB SSD, 1080P IPS display, Killer GigE, Killer 1202 wifi
Hackintosh: Gigabyte H61m-HD2, Celeron G1610, 4GB Patriot ram @1333Mhz, Asus GT210, WD 1TB Black, Silverstone ES50 500watt PSU, OS-X Mountain Liion
0

#9 User is offline   Gokuson123 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 19
  • Joined: 26-October 09

Posted 27 October 2009 - 04:58 PM

View Postwaldojim, on 27 October 2009 - 01:36 PM, said:

View PostGokuson123, on 27 October 2009 - 03:17 AM, said:

What games are able to use 4 cores now? I was unaware any had been developed for 4 cores let alone 64 bit. I think you should put that money to a good dual core system for games, since the 2 of the 4 cores will be letting your GPU do the rendering anyway =) Having a fast SSD disk with good read times will probably be more beneficial as well.


and truth be told - a quad at 3.6 VS a dual core at 3.6 which is faster?
A. They are both the same speed, just the quad lets you DO more.
This is being quoted from another forum:

Quote


All major next generation game engines will support multithreading. Even though I will mention some current heavy hitters and near future most anticipated games, keep in mind these are only few of many to come.

1. Source engine; Games like Half-Life 2 and others based on the Source engine.
2. Crytek 2 engine; Starting with Crysis and all upcoming titles.
3. Supreme Commander
4. Unreal 3 engine; Starting with Unreal III and all upcoming titles.
5. Splinter Cell: Double Agent; So will all future Splinter Cell games.
6. Hellgate: London
7. Alan Wake
8. Id Tech 5; Id's new engine.

If anyone knows more engines/titles, let me know! :)



It doesn't work like that, you can't give an imaginary quad core CPU an imaginary clock speed equal to that of a dual core and call them the same. What you are noticing is the increase in L1 and L2 cache on the die, which makes up a good chunk of the price. There is a balance between high clock speeds and high cores, with higher cores having diminishing returns. You need to take in the fact that not everything is programmed equally, and the lower overall clock speed of 4 individual cores is if a 2.4ghz quad core (so .06 ghz per core) is being compared to my 3.2 ghz AMD X2 6400 dual core, for example.

If we are rendering a video game scene, with many cards handling the physics too, what is my CPU really doing? Is it having to process anything or is it really just fetching resource files and holding them on the die in cache so the CPU can access them faster? At this point more cache is better. Now we have an Access database that is being sorted by thousands of users hourly at a business. While each process is not intensive, just fetching data, there are many of them. With a server using a few 16 core processors, it can use those low ghz cores to efficiently handle the huge incoming requests and thus more efficiently process the command as a whole.

Quad core was not designed for gaming. As most technologies, it was created for the working world first. Is it more efficient? Certainly, when things are coded for it. Or when they are actually using the 4 cores, not just the side benfits of crazy amounts of cache on the die ;)
0

#10 User is offline   waldojim 

  • Elite
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 16,412
  • Joined: 29-October 08
  • Location:Texas

Posted 27 October 2009 - 11:19 PM

View PostGokuson123, on 27 October 2009 - 04:58 PM, said:

View Postwaldojim, on 27 October 2009 - 01:36 PM, said:

View PostGokuson123, on 27 October 2009 - 03:17 AM, said:

What games are able to use 4 cores now? I was unaware any had been developed for 4 cores let alone 64 bit. I think you should put that money to a good dual core system for games, since the 2 of the 4 cores will be letting your GPU do the rendering anyway =) Having a fast SSD disk with good read times will probably be more beneficial as well.


and truth be told - a quad at 3.6 VS a dual core at 3.6 which is faster?
A. They are both the same speed, just the quad lets you DO more.
This is being quoted from another forum:

Quote


All major next generation game engines will support multithreading. Even though I will mention some current heavy hitters and near future most anticipated games, keep in mind these are only few of many to come.

1. Source engine; Games like Half-Life 2 and others based on the Source engine.
2. Crytek 2 engine; Starting with Crysis and all upcoming titles.
3. Supreme Commander
4. Unreal 3 engine; Starting with Unreal III and all upcoming titles.
5. Splinter Cell: Double Agent; So will all future Splinter Cell games.
6. Hellgate: London
7. Alan Wake
8. Id Tech 5; Id's new engine.

If anyone knows more engines/titles, let me know! :)



It doesn't work like that, you can't give an imaginary quad core CPU an imaginary clock speed equal to that of a dual core and call them the same. What you are noticing is the increase in L1 and L2 cache on the die, which makes up a good chunk of the price. There is a balance between high clock speeds and high cores, with higher cores having diminishing returns. You need to take in the fact that not everything is programmed equally, and the lower overall clock speed of 4 individual cores is if a 2.4ghz quad core (so .06 ghz per core) is being compared to my 3.2 ghz AMD X2 6400 dual core, for example.

If we are rendering a video game scene, with many cards handling the physics too, what is my CPU really doing? Is it having to process anything or is it really just fetching resource files and holding them on the die in cache so the CPU can access them faster? At this point more cache is better. Now we have an Access database that is being sorted by thousands of users hourly at a business. While each process is not intensive, just fetching data, there are many of them. With a server using a few 16 core processors, it can use those low ghz cores to efficiently handle the huge incoming requests and thus more efficiently process the command as a whole.

Quad core was not designed for gaming. As most technologies, it was created for the working world first. Is it more efficient? Certainly, when things are coded for it. Or when they are actually using the 4 cores, not just the side benfits of crazy amounts of cache on the die ;)

--edit-- I would like to know where My imaginary numbers are that you refer to? I use a 3.6ghz chip for my C2Q - and others use a C2D at 3.6... so I am lost to the imagination part...

tell you what - before you start throwing out information that is not *quite* correct - check the benchmarks - I run an Intel 9450 at 3.6 Ghz - find ANY 3.6ghz C2D that will outperform. Then find ANY well multithreaded game that performs WORSE. As to the cache - check this out:

This is quoted from intel website
Q9550 4 2.83 1333 12 MB 45nm
E8300 2 2.83 GHz 1333 MHz 6MB 45nm

Now check it out - if you will notice - the cache in use is exactly relative to the number of cores!
IF you are using Windows Vista or Windows 7 (or Linux/Unix/etc) The system will properly leave the threads on a particular core and the cache is distributed evenly, so all that crap about cache size, is bunk.
In the above example - they will perform EQUALLY in MOST current games - and the C2Q WILL perform BETTER in well multithreaded games. Please do not try to tell me other wise, I OWN both types of rigs, I KNOW how they perform, and if you need further proof - http://www.xbitlabs....00_8.html#sect0

Edit again:
Check out the F.E.A.R. and Crysis benchmarks - further proof that multithreaded games perform better on a quad - EVEN if it is clocked LOWER. Yes they are using a STOCK 2.4Ghz C2Q to outperform a 3.0Ghz C2D
http://www.techspot....nce/page10.html

This post has been edited by waldojim: 27 October 2009 - 11:29 PM

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" -- Isaac Asimov

Steam Machine: MSI 970A-G46, AMD Phenom 955 @ 4.0Ghz, 8GB Gskill ram @1600mhz, 128GB Plextor M5s, EVGA GTX 550Ti
Laptop: Alienware 14, Intel i7-4700MQ, 8GB DDR3 ram, Nvidia GTX 765M 4GB DDR5, Plextor M3 256GB SSD, 1080P IPS display, Killer GigE, Killer 1202 wifi
Hackintosh: Gigabyte H61m-HD2, Celeron G1610, 4GB Patriot ram @1333Mhz, Asus GT210, WD 1TB Black, Silverstone ES50 500watt PSU, OS-X Mountain Liion
0

#11 User is offline   Gokuson123 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 19
  • Joined: 26-October 09

Posted 28 October 2009 - 12:42 AM

Quote

--edit-- I would like to know where My imaginary numbers are that you refer to? I use a 3.6ghz chip for my C2Q - and others use a C2D at 3.6... so I am lost to the imagination part...

tell you what - before you start throwing out information that is not *quite* correct - check the benchmarks - I run an Intel 9450 at 3.6 Ghz - find ANY 3.6ghz C2D that will outperform. Then find ANY well multithreaded game that performs WORSE. As to the cache - check this out:

This is quoted from intel website
Q9550 4 2.83 1333 12 MB 45nm
E8300 2 2.83 GHz 1333 MHz 6MB 45nm

Now check it out - if you will notice - the cache in use is exactly relative to the number of cores!
IF you are using Windows Vista or Windows 7 (or Linux/Unix/etc) The system will properly leave the threads on a particular core and the cache is distributed evenly, so all that crap about cache size, is bunk.
In the above example - they will perform EQUALLY in MOST current games - and the C2Q WILL perform BETTER in well multithreaded games. Please do not try to tell me other wise, I OWN both types of rigs, I KNOW how they perform, and if you need further proof - http://www.xbitlabs....00_8.html#sect0

Edit again:
Check out the F.E.A.R. and Crysis benchmarks - further proof that multithreaded games perform better on a quad - EVEN if it is clocked LOWER. Yes they are using a STOCK 2.4Ghz C2Q to outperform a 3.0Ghz C2D
http://www.techspot....nce/page10.html


I'm not sure I quite understand this reply. Are you trying to tell me that in an application designed for use with a quad core it will be superior? Well, duh. Pardon me if I don't go by your benchmarks, even though your entire post was about your home rig and past experiences, all anecdotal. I never have been a fan of comparing 1 or 2 games to everything on the market. I personally thought F.E.A.R had sub par graphics and shoddy gameplay, I do not see why it is always used as a benchmark. How about you test your rig on some games that do not support 4 cores? Many games do not. Especially console ports. I KNOW there are manhy games and applications out there who have proven to be slower with a quad core. If you want to play the benchmark game here you go : http://www.codinghor...ves/000942.html

Benchmarks are like statistics. They can say whatever you want them to say. Btw, the fact each core has it's own cache, thus keeping the amount proportionate to a dual core, is a moot point. I do not see why you called me out on it, I was staing that because it has almost double the cache it can perform better just on that aspect. Whether it has a 2:1 ratio or a 1:1 ratio does not change the fact it has more cache. I would like to know what "mis stated" information I have posted, as well.
0

#12 User is offline   waldojim 

  • Elite
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 16,412
  • Joined: 29-October 08
  • Location:Texas

Posted 28 October 2009 - 01:00 AM

View PostGokuson123, on 28 October 2009 - 12:42 AM, said:

Quote

--edit-- I would like to know where My imaginary numbers are that you refer to? I use a 3.6ghz chip for my C2Q - and others use a C2D at 3.6... so I am lost to the imagination part...

tell you what - before you start throwing out information that is not *quite* correct - check the benchmarks - I run an Intel 9450 at 3.6 Ghz - find ANY 3.6ghz C2D that will outperform. Then find ANY well multithreaded game that performs WORSE. As to the cache - check this out:

This is quoted from intel website
Q9550 4 2.83 1333 12 MB 45nm
E8300 2 2.83 GHz 1333 MHz 6MB 45nm

Now check it out - if you will notice - the cache in use is exactly relative to the number of cores!
IF you are using Windows Vista or Windows 7 (or Linux/Unix/etc) The system will properly leave the threads on a particular core and the cache is distributed evenly, so all that crap about cache size, is bunk.
In the above example - they will perform EQUALLY in MOST current games - and the C2Q WILL perform BETTER in well multithreaded games. Please do not try to tell me other wise, I OWN both types of rigs, I KNOW how they perform, and if you need further proof - http://www.xbitlabs....00_8.html#sect0

Edit again:
Check out the F.E.A.R. and Crysis benchmarks - further proof that multithreaded games perform better on a quad - EVEN if it is clocked LOWER. Yes they are using a STOCK 2.4Ghz C2Q to outperform a 3.0Ghz C2D
http://www.techspot....nce/page10.html


I'm not sure I quite understand this reply. Are you trying to tell me that in an application designed for use with a quad core it will be superior? Well, duh. Pardon me if I don't go by your benchmarks, even though your entire post was about your home rig and past experiences, all anecdotal. I never have been a fan of comparing 1 or 2 games to everything on the market. I personally thought F.E.A.R had sub par graphics and shoddy gameplay, I do not see why it is always used as a benchmark. How about you test your rig on some games that do not support 4 cores? Many games do not. Especially console ports. I KNOW there are manhy games and applications out there who have proven to be slower with a quad core. If you want to play the benchmark game here you go : http://www.codinghor...ves/000942.html

Benchmarks are like statistics. They can say whatever you want them to say. Btw, the fact each core has it's own cache, thus keeping the amount proportionate to a dual core, is a moot point. I do not see why you called me out on it, I was staing that because it has almost double the cache it can perform better just on that aspect. Whether it has a 2:1 ratio or a 1:1 ratio does not change the fact it has more cache. I would like to know what "mis stated" information I have posted, as well.

Go through ALL the benchmarks you want. If the 4 core, and 2 core processor are the same family (wolfdale for example) Then CLOCK for CLOCK they perform Identically - and 4 cores lets yo do more work. Can I make that any clearer for you?

As to the benchmarks I was using - remember that these were released TWO years ago! They didn't have Warhammer to test with. And your game play preferences mean nothing compared to the performance analysis.

And what I was getting at with the cache - its the same cache just relative to the number of cores - should intel have made an 8 core - it would have had 24MB cache to maintain performance. .

I am not sure which part of this is a problem for you.

Can a quad core game? YES.
Can a quad core game as well as a dual core? Yes. Just ensure you get a quad CLOCKED similarly
Can a dual core (clock for clock) outperform a quad? NO.
Is there a damned good reason Quads cost more? Yes. They DO more
Do current games support multithreading? Yep some look - look above.
Are there MORE coming that support it? Yes! Game companies intend to expand on what is available!
Would I buy a dual core to game on today? NO. You can get quads that will run at 3ghz plus, allowing any game to run FULL TILT, and NEW games are not going to benefit as much from clock speed, as they are going with more cores = more power! Why buy for YESTERDAYS games, when you can buy for TOMORROWS games?

To answer the OP - if you are looking at a $240 Processor budget - get the quad and don't look back! OC that puppy to 3.2~3.6 and enjoy one of the fastest damned gaming rigs you can buy!

--edit--

oh and by pointing out I OWN such a rig, points out that I do have FIRST hand experience using said processor in a gaming environment. With both old, and new games.

This post has been edited by waldojim: 28 October 2009 - 01:02 AM

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" -- Isaac Asimov

Steam Machine: MSI 970A-G46, AMD Phenom 955 @ 4.0Ghz, 8GB Gskill ram @1600mhz, 128GB Plextor M5s, EVGA GTX 550Ti
Laptop: Alienware 14, Intel i7-4700MQ, 8GB DDR3 ram, Nvidia GTX 765M 4GB DDR5, Plextor M3 256GB SSD, 1080P IPS display, Killer GigE, Killer 1202 wifi
Hackintosh: Gigabyte H61m-HD2, Celeron G1610, 4GB Patriot ram @1333Mhz, Asus GT210, WD 1TB Black, Silverstone ES50 500watt PSU, OS-X Mountain Liion
0

#13 User is offline   Gokuson123 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 19
  • Joined: 26-October 09

Posted 28 October 2009 - 10:43 AM

Lots of people own lots of machines. Lots of people complain their new i7 setups don't work like they thought. Pardon me if I take things people say with a grain of salt.

You keep telling me in a perfect world where everything is optimized for a multi core CPU then they would be better. NO KIDDING.

It DOES matter what game you play because there are MANY applications and games that do NOT use 4 cores.

For Intel pre i7 is used two dual cores on the same die. This increase in heat, energy, and need of using the northbridge to communicate to the other "dual core" means there is a bottle neck in the Front side bus.

They are more efficient now, but most GAMES still do not use ALL 4 CORES. They are multi threaded but if you go and try to find what games besides Crysis and about 4 others plus flight sim games can actually use the 4 cores, you will be pleasantly un-surprised. The quad core was developed for the myriad of business and scientific software that need this to operate. In fact it was primarily developed for servers so instead of running 8 Dual cores we can run either 4 quads or 8 quads.

I do not want to start a fight on the internet, but I have grew up with computers form a real world perspective, I do not game much and I know that gamers are A.) easily tricked into buying anything with a shiny box and B.) As long as the computer can sti still running benchmarks and achieve 200 FPS in something that is all that matters.

What really matters is if that quad can make your Microsoft sharepoint server run faster for your 400 employees or help you with using your new VMware setup that everyone is pushing, not whether you can overclock it and get a good score on a benchmarking program. There is so much more to this than "i gots me 4 cores", some cores might be the same and others might be designed to perform certain tasks. The Cache might be shared or individual, and the FSB is still the bottleneck. So far we got the Crytek 2 engine, Valve's source as multi threading. But using 4 cores is not equal to using 4 efficiently, hence the big change to 4 core. It' sa big change, and it doesnt mean much if the hottest titles can do it and 90% of real world software can't.

This post has been edited by smax013: 28 October 2009 - 12:33 PM
Reason for edit: Minor edit of censored word

0

#14 User is offline   SnyperTodd 

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2,244
  • Joined: 06-February 09
  • Location:Northern IL

Posted 28 October 2009 - 12:24 PM

You two are, in essence, saying the same thing. The only difference on cache sizes, and Waldojim is correct, although he didn't exactly specify the reason he is correct, and Gokuson hasn't figured it out.

Quote

As to the cache - check this out:

This is quoted from intel website
Q9550 4 2.83 1333 12 MB 45nm
E8300 2 2.83 GHz 1333 MHz 6MB 45nm

Now check it out - if you will notice - the cache in use is exactly relative to the number of cores!
IF you are using Windows Vista or Windows 7 (or Linux/Unix/etc) Thesystem will properly leave the threads on a particular core and thecache is distributed evenly, so all that crap about cache size, is bunk.


The E8300 has 6MB of L2 cache. The Q9550 has 12MB of L2 cache. However, as Gokuson said, Intel's pre-i7 quads are really two dual cores, and that 12MB is actually 2 x 6MB. Therefore, each pair of cores shares 6MB of cache, identical to the E8300. That makes this:

Quote

...I was staing that because it has almost double the cache it can perform better just on that aspect.

Gokuson's incorrect statement. If it had 12MB of cache that any core could completely access, then you'd be right. But that's not the case.
"Obstacles are things you see when you take your eyes off the goal." -Alan Kulwicki, 1954-1993
0

#15 User is offline   smax013 

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 13,139
  • Joined: 28-January 07

Posted 28 October 2009 - 12:29 PM

Just a friendly reminder, let's keep the discussion civil. This discussion is getting close to crossing the line from civil to uncivil. So, I would ask that tone it down a bit.
Good riddance PCWorld.
0

#16 User is offline   SnyperTodd 

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2,244
  • Joined: 06-February 09
  • Location:Northern IL

Posted 28 October 2009 - 12:50 PM

View Postsmax013, on 28 October 2009 - 12:29 PM, said:

Just a friendly reminder, let's keep the discussion civil. This discussion is getting close to crossing the line from civil to uncivil. So, I would ask that tone it down a bit.


Every once in a while we get these guys who come in here thinking that we on this forum are all n00bz and they themselves are the final authority on all things computer related.. They learn quickly that that attitude doesn't go over well here...
"Obstacles are things you see when you take your eyes off the goal." -Alan Kulwicki, 1954-1993
0

#17 User is offline   smax013 

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 13,139
  • Joined: 28-January 07

Posted 28 October 2009 - 12:54 PM

View PostSnyperTodd, on 28 October 2009 - 12:50 PM, said:

View Postsmax013, on 28 October 2009 - 12:29 PM, said:

Just a friendly reminder, let's keep the discussion civil. This discussion is getting close to crossing the line from civil to uncivil. So, I would ask that tone it down a bit.


Every once in a while we get these guys who come in here thinking that we on this forum are all n00bz and they themselves are the final authority on all things computer related.. They learn quickly that that attitude doesn't go over well here...


I understand that, but you can still keep it civil while discussing issues with them. Disagreements are fine. Disagreements that turn into uncivil discussions with things like name calling, swearing, etc are not fine.

This was just a gentle reminder that we all need to remember to play nice with others. Call it a preventative measure to try to keep this discussion from turning into name calling and personal attacks.
Good riddance PCWorld.
0

#18 User is offline   SnyperTodd 

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2,244
  • Joined: 06-February 09
  • Location:Northern IL

Posted 28 October 2009 - 01:16 PM

View PostGokuson123, on 28 October 2009 - 12:42 AM, said:

How about you test your rig on some games that do not support 4 cores? Many games do not. Especially console ports. I KNOW there are manhy games and applications out there who have proven to be slower with a quad core. If you want to play the benchmark game here you go : http://www.codinghor...ves/000942.html


Wait a minute! I just read this rather than skimming it like I did earlier. I also just checked the link... Games/Apps that have proven slower on a quad?? Those apps that appear to be slower on a quad core are slower because the quad is clocked slower and they don't take advantage of all four cores! The ones that show a gain are written to take advantage of more cores! You've just inadvertently proven Waldojim's point.
"Obstacles are things you see when you take your eyes off the goal." -Alan Kulwicki, 1954-1993
0

#19 User is offline   waldojim 

  • Elite
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 16,412
  • Joined: 29-October 08
  • Location:Texas

Posted 28 October 2009 - 02:15 PM

View PostSnyperTodd, on 28 October 2009 - 01:16 PM, said:

View PostGokuson123, on 28 October 2009 - 12:42 AM, said:

How about you test your rig on some games that do not support 4 cores? Many games do not. Especially console ports. I KNOW there are manhy games and applications out there who have proven to be slower with a quad core. If you want to play the benchmark game here you go : http://www.codinghor...ves/000942.html


Wait a minute! I just read this rather than skimming it like I did earlier. I also just checked the link... Games/Apps that have proven slower on a quad?? Those apps that appear to be slower on a quad core are slower because the quad is clocked slower and they don't take advantage of all four cores! The ones that show a gain are written to take advantage of more cores! You've just inadvertently proven Waldojim's point.


and if you will look, some of those were still very close numbers, even with a 1ghz disadvantage! But my point still stands - clock for clock, they will perform the same, the quad allows you to do more work though. And game companies are still making more games for the quads rather than less. as to the core i7 - Hyperthreading is overrated - always has been. Remember what intel was doing with the Athlon 64 debuted? P4 with HT - look who failed. The i7 offers TWO advantages 1. QPI 2. Monolithic design. And if you are referring to the 1156 i7's then you loose all the advantages, and gain MANY disadvantages. EG - no real connection to allow for TRUE SLI, there is NO option for a real mid-level performance board.
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" -- Isaac Asimov

Steam Machine: MSI 970A-G46, AMD Phenom 955 @ 4.0Ghz, 8GB Gskill ram @1600mhz, 128GB Plextor M5s, EVGA GTX 550Ti
Laptop: Alienware 14, Intel i7-4700MQ, 8GB DDR3 ram, Nvidia GTX 765M 4GB DDR5, Plextor M3 256GB SSD, 1080P IPS display, Killer GigE, Killer 1202 wifi
Hackintosh: Gigabyte H61m-HD2, Celeron G1610, 4GB Patriot ram @1333Mhz, Asus GT210, WD 1TB Black, Silverstone ES50 500watt PSU, OS-X Mountain Liion
0

#20 User is offline   waldojim 

  • Elite
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 16,412
  • Joined: 29-October 08
  • Location:Texas

Posted 28 October 2009 - 02:23 PM

View PostGokuson123, on 28 October 2009 - 10:43 AM, said:

Lots of people own lots of machines. Lots of people complain their new i7 setups don't work like they thought. Pardon me if I take things people say with a grain of salt.

You keep telling me in a perfect world where everything is optimized for a multi core CPU then they would be better. NO KIDDING.

It DOES matter what game you play because there are MANY applications and games that do NOT use 4 cores.

For Intel pre i7 is used two dual cores on the same die. This increase in heat, energy, and need of using the northbridge to communicate to the other "dual core" means there is a bottle neck in the Front side bus.

They are more efficient now, but most GAMES still do not use ALL 4 CORES. They are multi threaded but if you go and try to find what games besides Crysis and about 4 others plus flight sim games can actually use the 4 cores, you will be pleasantly un-surprised. The quad core was developed for the myriad of business and scientific software that need this to operate. In fact it was primarily developed for servers so instead of running 8 Dual cores we can run either 4 quads or 8 quads.

I do not want to start a fight on the internet, but I have grew up with computers form a real world perspective, I do not game much and I know that gamers are A.) easily tricked into buying anything with a shiny box and B.) As long as the computer can sti still running benchmarks and achieve 200 FPS in something that is all that matters.

What really matters is if that quad can make your Microsoft sharepoint server run faster for your 400 employees or help you with using your new VMware setup that everyone is pushing, not whether you can overclock it and get a good score on a benchmarking program. There is so much more to this than "i gots me 4 cores", some cores might be the same and others might be designed to perform certain tasks. The Cache might be shared or individual, and the FSB is still the bottleneck. So far we got the Crytek 2 engine, Valve's source as multi threading. But using 4 cores is not equal to using 4 efficiently, hence the big change to 4 core. It' sa big change, and it doesnt mean much if the hottest titles can do it and 90% of real world software can't.


I don't care if you have a problem with people owning a quad core - and I don't care if you have a problem with gamers.

Please do not spread mis-information. Just because you don't like it for whatever reason, does not mean it will not perform the task. They are a desktop processor, they are designed to multitask. That means if I want to recode an HD stream while playing WoW, then so be it. If that means playing crysis and enjoying better gameplay due to my 4 cores, then so be it. The OP asked if the quad can game - the answer is yes, and I backed up that statement.
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" -- Isaac Asimov

Steam Machine: MSI 970A-G46, AMD Phenom 955 @ 4.0Ghz, 8GB Gskill ram @1600mhz, 128GB Plextor M5s, EVGA GTX 550Ti
Laptop: Alienware 14, Intel i7-4700MQ, 8GB DDR3 ram, Nvidia GTX 765M 4GB DDR5, Plextor M3 256GB SSD, 1080P IPS display, Killer GigE, Killer 1202 wifi
Hackintosh: Gigabyte H61m-HD2, Celeron G1610, 4GB Patriot ram @1333Mhz, Asus GT210, WD 1TB Black, Silverstone ES50 500watt PSU, OS-X Mountain Liion
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users