If I build it, will it run?

[simple_inhibition]

Originally Posted by unknown555525

How can you possibly say that? We are in the erra of multicore gaming.

All of the widely used engines support multi cores, Cryengine 2, Unreal engine 3, The Orange box version of Source, the Dunia engine, blizzard's new engine, Relic's new engine, and many MANY more.

That just about covors 90% of the game engines that most current, and further games to come will run on, and every one of them supports quad cores.

How can you possibly say that the better choice for gaming is a dual core processor when almost every game that's currently out, and all games to come will either support quad or more cores, or simply don't need that much CPU power.

What you just said was a pretty dumb comment.

Saying that hardly anything supports all the cores of a quad core CPU may have been true back in 2005, but not today.

with the exception of supreme commander, a faster dualcore wins in all of the gaming benchmarks as reviewed HERE. if you can find proof (IE post results) that contradicts what i have posted, please do so. i would be very interested to see it.

as to you saying that was a dumb comment on your post, dont sass the mods. i understand that people become compassionate towards their side of the argument, however comments like that are better off dropped at other forums. consider this a warning.

[unknown555525]

Err.. even moreso,

Please, go back, read what you just posted.

In every situation, the lower clocked quad core beat out the higher clocked dual core. Even though the games only supported single, and dual cores. excluding COH.

Another thing is that this article is testing games that use outdated engines that today's games do not use. and is also 3 months away from being a year old. Quake 4 is 3 years old, why is that even in there??

I was talking about current games, and next gen games to come.

I would definately test these myself If I still had my old E6750, but I don't.

I do still have a 3.2GHz P4. Though I'm shure gaming tests of a Q6600 vs a P4 would be laughable.

[simple_inhibition]

Originally Posted by unknown555525

Err.. even moreso,

Please, go back, read what you just posted.

In every situation, the lower clocked quad core beat out the higher clocked dual core. Even though the games only supported single, and dual cores. excluding COH.

Another thing is that this article is testing games that use outdated engines that today's games do not use. and is also 3 months away from being a year old. Quake 4 is 3 years old, why is that even in there??

I was talking about current games, and next gen games to come.

I would definately test these myself If I still had my old E6750, but I don't.

I do still have a 3.2GHz P4. Though I'm shure gaming tests of a Q6600 vs a P4 would be laughable.

your right in saying that a quad beats a dual in everything other than gaming. but look back at the OP's first post....

Originally Posted by StevieRay

That is the question...so after mucho reading I found a few items that I like for my first build. I want to run games on this and use it for work. I use databases, internet, and heavy email for work (from home) and want this machine to be the gamer/worker. They are the same arent they?

in respect to what he wants this system for, a dual would be perfect as everything he listed other than gaming, (IE internet/database/email) any computer since the pentium 2 can do just fine. also add in the fact that the new 45nm procs use less power, are faster clock for clock, have sse4 and overclock much better, its hard not to recommend an E8400.

btw of all those game engines you listed, which ones can you currently go to the store and buy? i know crytek2 (crysis) but other than that, i honestly dont know.

[unknown555525]

Shure, an E8400 etc.. would take less power, less heat, and that is why it overclocks so well, but still, I don't find it worth the cost over a lower priced quad, or even lower clocked older core 2 duo's. People have thier own personal preferences, and I don't argue that the e8400 isn't fast, but I think it's more just for overclockers than anything else.


The engines I was talking about are quite largely known.

Cryengine 2 (crysis and tons of upcoming titles)

Unreal engine 3 (UT3, Bioshock, MOH:airborne, and probebly about 50 other titles using the engine in 2008 alone.)

Orange box version of Source ( TF2, HL2 ep2, Portal, Left 4 dead, etc..)

Dunia (Next big engine from ubisoft, first game to use it is Farcry 2)

Blizzard's new engine for Starcraft 2 and upcoming games from blizzard.

Relic's new engine for RTS games, first game to use it is Dawn of War 2.

There are also others like Codemaster's custom engine for racing games.

Every one of these supports quad cores or more. I've heard that many of these are actually coded to support up to 128 processor cores, though that's beyond useless right now.

[Hitman]

OK Guys we get it neither one of you agree, and it's apparent that you aren't convincing eachother. Even though you guys are more in agreement then either will admit. Drop it and lets get this thread back on topic.

[simple_inhibition]

cool. i wasnt aware of all the games out there. much appreciated

hitman is right, we both have our own preferences. either one of the processors we suggested is fast and will more than suit the OP's needs.

[screwballl]

The main question is not which game engines support multiple cores but to what extent. One example is Sins of a Solar Empire... it supports multiple cores... but a majority of the game itself only runs on the first core and uses the second for some graphics and minor processing. This is the way that many current game engines actually use multiple cores. Due to this limitation with current and some newer games, this is why a faster clock dual core will run the games better than a lower clocked quad core. This is why most of us at HL suggest faster dual cores over slower quad cores for gaming.
Almost none of the game engines you listed truly "use" multiple cores to the fullest extent.

Official SOSE reply:

Dual-Core CPU? » Stardock Forums

The game only uses additional cores for texture loading, so high utilization on one core is normal.

This is the norm for many of the modern games out there.

[StevieRay]

Wow. I just learned a lot. Really, I mean it. I know a bit off topic but thank you! I play modded games mostly and currently BF2 Project Reality mostly. It runs on whatever BF2 engine there is and I am sure will for some time until BF3 comes out which will probably be on one of those new engines mentioned. I play COD4 and CoH after that. I can go max res or lower and BF2 calls for lower. Oh, I play these multiplayer always.

I thank you for the mobo info. I had no idea that new architecture was around the corner for intel. Just unsure what to do now. I guess an X38 DDR2 is next on my research list...good thing I dont mind research.

The 8800GTS 512 has to be the best for the buck right now.

Some stuff I found...

X-bit labs - Contemporary Dual-Core Processors Shootout (page 4)

X-bit labs - Meet Intel Wolfdale: Core 2 Duo E8500, E8400 and E8200 Processors Review

I only wish that there was a q6600 v. E8400/8500 review because the E6850 is a bit old now, no?

<-- my head hurts. Square 1.

[screwballl]

thats part of the game (pun intended)..... you can buy and build now.. or wait a month and buy and build then... remember that there is ALWAYS new technology around the corner and existing prices drop. The best you can do is build when you are ready. Honestly now is a great time, DDR3 prices are dropping, the X38 and X48 chipset boards are dropping in price, CPU prices are doing well right now...
If you always try to have the latest and the greatest, you will always be broke or in debt. Build what you want and enjoy it. You really will not see that great of a performance gain going from a E8400 to a E9500 or a 9600GT over a 8800GTS...

[polobunny]

Gaming for now and likely the next 18+ months if not more you will probably get more "bang for the buck" out of a E8400. If you don't plan to upgrade in 2 years or you need a quad for other reasons (other than gaming) then I guess a Q6600 would be an interesting "investment".