dual core or quad for gaming?

I read other threads but they have really fade answers, so ima just lay down my problems here.


i have a g51vx and 2.0 ghz duo is really a pain in the , whenever there's explosion it has drop frames problem or when there is too many things to load.

so ima upgrade my cpu to t9600, but then i read a post about q9000 vs t9600,and it mentioned that some games run better with q9000.


so here i am, just a regular gamer, asking advice from all you laptop cpu upgrades fellas, what is better for gaming, a quad or due, (quad 2.0, due 2.8)


i understand some of you will say it depends, but just in general what would YOU choose if you are in my shoe, (q9000 is slightly cheaper than t9600).




and PS yes I will OC my cpu

 

quad is better.

 

from experience?

 

Yes. 2.0 due = 2x2.0=4.0Ghz
2.0~2.8 quad = 4x2.0=8Ghz (with turbo = 11.2Ghz)

I own 2630QM, and its good (had 2.1Ghz Due, and the i7 is great)

 

well t9600 is 2.8 so it should be 5.6Ghz. you see that's the logic I have been using.

if i add up all the CPU power I totally agree that a quad is better, but my question is that CAN you really do that? does it REALLY mean that it is better for gaming just becuz quad has a higher cpu power when you simply add them up?

 

and I don't think my g51vx motherboard is compatible with i7, i've only seen people upgrade it to q9000. I have heard theory that the motherboard shouldn't even be compatible with any quads but i've seen q9000 is possible.

 

Geez Waffle youre totally wrong. You need to gain some more knowledge because what you wrote is totally absurd and noobish.

First of all, theres no 11.2ghz. You cant multiply or add speed like it is a normal equation because its not how it works.

So basically 4 cores doesnt run at 2ghz each. 2ghz is the main clock speed of the whole cpu, including 4 cores. Each core doesnt run a specific speed, thats what most people get wrong.

It would be more correct to say, albeit is still wrong, that all 4 cores together make 2.0ghz clock speed. It would be 2/4= 0,500mhz each core, is still wrong thought.

Cores/Threads are basically micro-brains that operate together to do more operations at once instead of having all the load on 1 or 2 cores.

You need to understand also how turbo works. The max frequency listed is always with 1 core. If an app or a game requires only 1 core, the turbo boost raises the whole cpu clock to utilize only 1 core for it, thus achieving higher speeds.

When 2 or 3 cores are used, the frequency drops considerably from the "max" point, until you reach a basic turbo boost (often 200mhz or 400) on all 4 cores.

Now on the question:

If you plan to upgrade to a quad at least get one which is in the middle between your cpu and the t9600 clockspeed.
A quad is mostly obliged in these days since most new titles, even those from the last year, are made with consoles as the main SKU, therefore they are built to use more than 2 cores.

They can still works with 2 cores but there will be a huge bottleneck.

As an example, take Battlefield BC2 or BF3: the engine is structured to allocate all the 4 cores in a quad core cpu. Being:

1 - general processing
2 - gfx processing
3 - physics processing (havok, which runs totally on cpu)
4 - sound thread processing

So yes upgrading to a Q9000/9200 or 9000QS will help alot in current and newer games. But keep in mind that youre already bottlenecked by your gpu, so i will consider getting a new laptop before shelling money for a new cpu.
Hope it helps-

 

Your logic is totally wrong mate, thats not how cpus works. If you base your whole conception of upgrade or technical data on that logic youll find yourself always with the feeling of being scammed in some way.
Theres a reason why the current Guinness World Record is from AMD, with bulldozer platform cpu reaching 5,846ghz.
Otherwise that record will have been beaten 3 years ago when i reached 4ghz on my X9000.
Its a wrong logic, seriously.

No no, you cant even use a Core i first gen. Theres a totally different chipset and technology behind it, you cant simply use a newer cpu. Besides, the cpu socket will not be compatible by any means.Not all G51vx can use a Quad. As an example Best Buy versions couldnt use it since the mobo in someway differ.
Stock G51vx could upgrade to a Q9000 thought.

 

i know that logic is flaw that's why i asked "is it REALLY ok to think like that".

what i have is g51vx rx05, so i think is the bestbuy version you are talking about, so i will not be able to upgrade it to a quad huh? wut about t9600, is it upgradable?

 

No, you cannot think in terms of 2x2.8GHz or 4x2.0GHz. Let's take your C2D as an example since there is basically no turbo on it which simplifies the explanation. Each core can execute one thread. You feed one thread to each core and they will both execute the instructions at 2.8GHz. Now you send only one thread to the CPU, it will execute that thread on one core and that core is still running at 2.8GHz while the other is doing nothing (hypothetical case of course).

For example, if you have only one core on a CPU, when you play a game, that core has to execute threads from the OS, from the game, from other programs you might have running, etc. It has to switch back and forth between threads from those various sources. With a CPU that has more than one core, you can execute multiple threads at the same time. For example, let's say that you have a quad core and that you are playing a game that uses two threads. you can have two cores dedicated to the game if it needs to fully use those cores. The other two cores can be used for the OS and other tasks you have running which is why if you look for articles that relate game performance vs # of cores, you see that even dual threaded games can get a boost on a CPU with 3+ cores as long as the CPU isn't the bottleneck.

 

In regards to your original question ignoring how CPU's work.

IMO Quad core, if the dual core is higher clocked you may get better performance in games that cannot utilise the full benefit of multithreading technology or in your option (Q9000) that cannot utilise all 4 cores but the majority of new games are doing so and the more threads per core the better.

The Q9000 is 4 cores 4 threads opposed to the T9600 which is 2 cores 2 threads. If the quad works in your model you would be better off getting it and overclocking it unless you decide that you would benefit more from upgrading your G51 which is the better choice at the end of the day. 4 cores 8 threads FTW.

P.s I seem to remember reading a supercomputer that could process at around 11Ghz but sadly your 2630QM will not be doing so

 

From an article I read dated in 2009, they saw gaming performance increase with up to 3 cores. By now games may use 4 cores. However, there is a definite increase in performance from 2 to 3 cores. No true gamer would build a dual core system anymore...

 

@Threadstarter(hihiip201), first of all, if your going to upgrade your CPU, I'd go with an Extreme processor, as in either a QX9300 Quad core 2.53GHZ or X9100 3.06GHZ dual core.
Then, overclock with Throttlestop. Could easily get 3.4GHZ or better on X9100.

I don't know if your laptop can take quad cores but I am pretty sure that a G51vx can, however I know a G50v or G50VT cannot. The reason is because a few traces for the socket for the CPU are missing that the quad core uses, so it won't work. I saw that info on a thread on this site linking to an Intel chipset pdf.

Before looking for a QX9300 or X9100 on Ebay, I'd make sure that your video card is not the bottleneck. If you really want a laptop that'll play new games on high texture settings with Physx and dx11 etc, I'd save up for a Sandybridge or newer quadcore laptop with a good video card. Include AMD Piledriver+Trinity (with a good dedicated card) in that list.

Your 2GHZ CPU isn't that powerful though so a CPU upgrade could help. Another option is to go ahead with the CPU upgrade and then get an expresscard interfaced external video card, but I think you'd have to game on an external monitor.

EDIT: There are ways to do a DIY external desktop GPU Vidock and display it on your laptop's screen. Runs through your expresscard slot.

 

If you have the best buy model you can not upgrade to a quad. Go for the x9100 and overclock it with throttlestop. My old x9000 overclocked could keep up with my i7-740qm.

 

Quadcore. Quad. Core.
Like Quad-Cannon, better firepower than dual.
Newer.
More multitasking.
They have higher cache.
Oh...overclock it.
Upcoming games will like multi-cores.

 

I know what are you saying ( http://ark.intel.com/products/52219 4 cores for 8 threads)
I kinda know half of it, but I ment when he will play new games, that require 4 cores, for example:
(Battlefield 3)

OS: Windows 7 64-bit
Processor: Quad-core Intel or AMD CPU
RAM: 4GB
Graphics card: DirectX 11 Nvidia or AMD ATI card, Nvidia GeForce GTX 560 or ATI Radeon 6950.
Graphics card memory: 1 GB
Sound card: DirectX compatibl sound card
Hard drive: 15 GB for disc version or 10 GB for digital version

Then it will use all the cores, so that's means more power with 4 cores instend of 2... no?

 

More power is still wrong.
Check my previous post where I describe how FROSTBYTE engine handles more than 2 cores.
Basically it's all about how the game scales various tasks on the CPU cores boosting performance, because all of them work separately and in parallel with each other.

A quad clocked at 2ghz in this quad optimized games will have a huge advantage over a dual core clocked, let's say, at 3,5ghz.
Clock speed matters but also the whole game engine is what makes a difference.

 

So its kinda more power for games no? (better performance)
I did say that if the game require 4 cores, the performance will be better

 

Waffleboy...your 4x2.8GHz had me rofl-ing. That is honestly one of the stupid things I've heard. Even me, a computer noob, knows that that's not how it works. What kingpinzero, tijo and Dallers said is right.
@ OP... I'd say get an extreme CPU so that you can overclock it. Will help as long as your graphics card does not bottleneck your system.

 

IF the game requires 4 cores, yes, you'll get better performance. But not many games use all 4 cores. Battlefield 3 will benefit from a Quad core though.

 

Everybody wrongs, right? now I know what does it really mean.

but he asks if its better then due, so as I said, it is.

 

Hey Waffleboy, think of processor speed vs number of cores as speed vs efficiency.

A processor with more cores can process multiple tasks with greater efficiency than a faster processor that has fewer cores.

 

It is unlikely that a fast dual core processor like a moderately overclocked X9100 would be a bottleneck in most games (except for GTA 4) for many years. Therefore if the threadstarter wants to have a laptop that can do serious gaming, then a EGPU solution is the only option if he wants to keep his laptop for a long time because his laptop can have a CPU that is plenty powerful and the EGPU through the expresscard 1.0 slot can bring improved performance.

I'd be happy with your Nvidia 260m in your Asus and get the CPU upgrade when you see a good price on ebay. Wait a few years and have fun with your laptop and then decide..

 

Dual core is fastly becoming extinct there is no way it will be able to compete for another couple of years it will bottleneck even if the 260M bottlenecks first it still will. If you push a X9100 through a game like Battlefield 3 or future games to come I bet you the cores will be slammed to 100% as this has already explained several times people should not compare speed against processing power as they are two different things more cores and more threads shares/separates/mulitplys the workload however you wish to put it and if a game like BF3 is optimised to allow 3-4 cores to do the processing when you restrict that to 2 cores you notice the difference.

I wont comment on the EGPU recommendation I really dont understand it if you want a desktop buy a desktop the OP is better off upgrading at the end of the day.

 

The e-GPU will be starving for bandwidth compared to the GTX260. Don't forget that the expresscard is running at pcie-x1 speeds and the GPU is connected to a pci-e x16 interface. 16 times the bandwidth is a world of difference. It doesn't matter how fast your GPU can process the data if your bandwidth to receive and send data isn't capable of keeping up with it. It does make sense for people with low end IGPs, but a GTX260 should outperform any e-GPu on an expresscard connection. When and if we have an external interface with comparable bandwidth, things will be different. Even lightpeak is far form the bandwidth of a pci-e x16 1.0 interface (~4GB/s, 8 for 2.0).

 

FYI, both battlefield 3 and COD: Modern Warfare 3 both just need a 2.4GHZ Core 2 Duo in the minimum system requirements. A 3.6GHZ C2D should do just fine but I haven't tried it personally yet.

 

There is a world of difference between minimum and recommended requirements. You can run SC2 on a P4, doesn't mean that you should... Sure you cna run the game on a dual core, but it will run more smoothly on a quad core especially when physics come into play and there are multiple objects/players on screen.

 

WHOA WHOA Hold the train folks. Yes the correct theory on a 4 core cpu is 4x 3ghz = 12ghz.

let me explain before you troll.... Whilist desktop idling you have access to 4 threads.. each at 3ghz a piece.. the machine at desktop will be almost if not a tad faster then a core 2 duo at 3ghz.

Say you had a game optimized to use 2 cores. (ie. Crsyis the original.)

running it on a core 2 duo clocked at 4ghz ie "8400" cpu overclock over a quad 3.6 "q6600". the core 2 duo produced better game and frame rates, until it was later 4 cores can be utilized. Crysis 2 and (im not sure but the original may of been patched to take advantage of 4)

Final matters are you have, 32MB worth of super pi tests to run. a quad core and a core 2 duo. given they are both the same bus speed, same L2 Cache, and architechture. You can either run 4 threads or 2 on the core2duo. You will find if both processors are clocked identically the same @ 2ghz. the quad core will finish exactly twice as fast.

on the contrary, if you have a dual core @ 2 ghz, and a futuristic cpu munching on 256 cores but only clocked at 400mhz a piece, you'll get better gaming using today's core 2 duo.. but as soon as they unleash software written to utilize 256 threads. the gates of hell open on the new release of Diablo 13.

yes its the right speculation saying a quad at 3ghz equal 12ghz of processing power. if software will be written to utilize 4 cores.

and if anyone still doesn't believe me, run a dhrystone benchmark in sysoft sandra, then disable two cores and run it again.. you'll be at half.

 

a second look at the futuristic cpu..

say you had an oct core *8* cores. clocked @ 3.33ghz * 26.64ghz potential
And a 256 core clocked at @ 2.0ghz * 512ghz potential

run a copy of BF3 or MW3. the game will be faster on the 8 core cpu.

I think you guys are mixing up the GPU which is a multiple cores yet utilizing stream processors, similiar to a cpu hyperthreading but totally different things, designed to do completely different calculations.

and finally pentium D dual core and a core 2 duo. pentium D overclocked at 4ghz struggles to keep up with a core 2 duo at ~2ghz.

And the confuser, is the vectors in the core2 duo architecture which can multiply/add several operands at once.

CPU are designed to solve complex equations, while GPU's are streamlined simple equations. With that being said, thats why you'll only find CPU's in an 6-8 core max at the moment giving the complexity much wider range of aplications and control structures. and the gpus continue to grow in "cores" not the same as CPU cores, Stream processors. leaving the control to calculation gate ratio much lower on the gpu. Utilizing a technology called Cuda though we can emulate the cpu's instructions using a gpu finishing the simple instructions much quicker then the CPU would.

 

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/K/313580/original/amd fx-8150 cores.png

A AMD 8150 Bulldozer chip with 3 of the 4 modules disabled, effectively bringing it down to a dual core 3.6GHZ Bulldozer chip, running BF3 at high settings can still attain 71FPS. I don't know what part of the game and how many characters were in it when they did that test. It's from a tomshardware article.
Some say that a Core 2 Duo can be faster than a Bulldozer, clock for clock. So that means that a X9100 at 3.6GHZ will do at least as well as a dual core Bulldozer, clocked the same if not better.

I 100% agree that years down the road, a X9100 3.6GHZ will be a bottleneck in many more games. Right now it's solely GTA4 that would be CPU bound by this chip.
I mean sure if your talking about a 580GTX or whatever, which will be a bottleneck, the CPU may be but who cares your still getting 71FPS.

 

You are right in that regards, however, you need a workload that can be split in multiple threads. Running a single thread on a 2.0GHz quad core won't equate to running the same thread on a 8.0GHz single core. In some specific cases, a quad core will perform exactly like a single core at 4x it's speed, in some cases, it simply won't. That is why we say it isn't the right reasoning since it doesn't apply to all scenarios. Software for math calculations is made to scale on many cores and the workload applied to each core is the same hence why you see the same results as if you were running a single core at 4x the clock speed of the quad core.

A single thread of wPrime will take almost the same time to complete on a C2D or on a C2Q at the same clock speed.

 

Correct, giving they are the same architecture.

However, if you have a q6600 overclocked @3ghz and a q9650 at stock clock of 3ghz.. your 9650 will return quicker results based on faster bus, and 4MB additional L2 Cache. and also normally you would be on a DDR3 board at that time, not to many DDR2 boards i know of that run a 9650. although i've done it in the past for a brief period of time.

DD2 boards don't overclock well on High FSB cpus if any at all. Most will top out at 1600 fsb before the FSB hole.. *Cough cough* 680i 780i boards