Quad Core Hype

I don't understand why everyone is clammoring for a Quad in their laptops. A higher clocked Core 2 will always do better than a Quad for gaming. How many games out there actually utilize more than 2 cores?

 

Maybe they want to play 2 games at once?

 

More and more games will be able to utilize Quad's more, GTA 4 is a good example

 

Why do we assume everyone wants a Quad for gaming.

I use a dozen professional Applications that all extensively use Quads or more.
But some games, and likely more in the future will do better with Quads.. GTAIV for example, and more and more RTS games too.

 

I mean when I get rid of this lappy in I don't know 18 months or so I will get a Quad core laptop I'm sure but if a Quad is so much more of a premium over a Core 2 I don't see the justification for spending the money right now. I guess I just see it everywhere, the same thing.."I'm waiting for a Quad"... why? Just buy now and enjoy your laptop.

I play GTA4 on a desktop I built myself with a GTX 295, Intel i7-950 and I still can't play with max settings. That game is best played on the PS3 IMO.

 

I guess I should've had the title say Quad Core Hype for gaming. My bad... I use Quads at work all the time.

 

octacon on a side note MGS4 is the best game out yet for the PS3, that is until GOD OF WAR 3 comes out.

 

Thats because its a bad conversion forom the PS3. It is badly optimized to work on a PC and thefore uses lots of computer resources.

So far I've only heard of Crysis and GTA4 using actually more than 2 cores. (maybe some other games)
Now, Duo's are a better choice, but certainly for the future Quads are gonna perform better. That's probably y ppl want them so much.
IMO Q9000 + OC possibility is a good choice. Otherwise a QX9300.

There are other app's that do better on 4 cores ie. video editting.

 

This is such an untrue statement that I should quote it for all to see, the fact that I have benchmarks & tests and we have about 100 threads on this forum explaining why quad is better, if you think suddenly things are different your being very naive.

Plus since when is gaming the only thing you do on a laptop?

If you have this state of mind, by all means please get a dual core and be happy, I'll be one of the many guys running circles around you with my quad core, and enjoying games you cant even think of playing.

 

Pretty sure that Crysis is dual-core. Another quad-optimized game is Supreme Commander, one of the earliest quad-ready games.

Don't forget that your quad core is also overclocked substantially, ViciousXUSMC, that always helps.

 

Vicious you sure don't pull any punches.

I am pretty sure, and you can quote me on this, a good C2D will be able to play most if not all games. Now at what level is a different story.

It would not be good business to ever come out with a game that only the best system can play and nothing under it. I remember the days when PC gaming was king. Now it seems to be the place for the highest end of games (Crysis), MMORPG (WoW), RTS (ARMa, Flashpoint), or Niche. Those do account for millions in sales, but we are def losing the war.

Flashpoint 2: Dragon Rising is another one of those nails.

 

Correct but I did my benchmarks for the review at the stock 2.0ghz then again at the turbogear 2.3ghz and every game I tested except Crysis showed no gains meaning 2ghz was already more than enough. Crysis was only like 2fps, that was within relm of margin of error.

The other thing to take to mind is if your 3ghz dual is getting 200fps and a 2.0ghz quad is 150fps in real life terms the quad and dual are performing the same as they are both over the 60fps threshold.

2.0ghz is the slowest quad out there currently aswell.

 

False. A day will come when this is no longer true. No comment on when that day is.

 

Im a bit blunt sometimes, especially if I am in a hurry and its a topic that has been debated to death already.

The truth of the mater is that currently a quad (esp an overclocked one) can play ANY game period, but there are a handfull of games that are quad supported that even a very fast dual core cant properly handle, if you went by that only the quad is actually supperior to the dual core.

But my reason for wanting a quad is not just for that, its to be more ready for future games and to enjoy the many other benifits a quad offers, I do video encoding a even at 2ghz I have the power of a 4ghz dual core when encoding, as mentioned I overclock mine, to 2.7ghz, so I have all that power x4 so @ 2.7ghz I have the power of a 5.4ghz dual core for encoding.

Also when playing just a dual core game, anything running in the background can be offloaded to other cpu cores and you can have 2 cores fully dedicated to gaming, this allows you to do things while your gaming with no ill effects (assuming your not pulling something else down that you need like your hdd or internet)

 

Clarksfield CPUs should perform quite a bit better than the existing Core 2 Quad's we see as do their Nehalem desktop counterparts.

 

No argument here about the Quads. The CPU world is getting like the razor blade world; soon 2 blades wont be enough Gilette 10 blade!

The more efficient we get at passing information between multiple cores the more cores we will have.

 

True if you only compare clock for clock performance. The problem is that according to the current rumors, the Clarksfield processors will be clocked substantially lower than current offerings, so even with an estimated 20% performance boost from the Nehalem technology, the 1.6 Ghz, 1.73 Ghz, & 2 Ghz Clarksfield CPUs will only compare to 1.92 Ghz, 2.08 Ghz, & 2.4 Ghz, which are lower clockspeeds than the current Core 2 mobile quad offerings of 2 Ghz, 2.26 Ghz, & 2.53 Ghz.

 

Well. Maybe not everyone wants a laptop for gaming.

 

I encode and decode movies on my lappie. A quad core is nice to have to speed up those functions, not just for gaming. Although it would be put to that use as well.

 

Though it may remain slower per core, remember that on a dual core CPU, background services will still increase load on each core when working with applications that are optimized for 2 cores. If nothing else, this will remove such loads.

In addition, the extreme edition CPU will have the ability to overclock individual cores.
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/14184/1/

 

I was just lamenting the fact that the new CPUs won't be clocked higher, that's all. I'm definitely a fan of quad-core adaptation - I just wish it was happening at faster frequencies.

 

Where do you get off calling me naive?

Thanks to all who helped when I got this laptop but I don't need to be called naive by someone on an internet message board. I'm above responding to his comment...I'm out peeps.. I'll go find another board to post on. ASUS forever! Any mod can close this thread...

 

PS3 does not max GTA IV, If there's one thing i wish before i die, is that people stop worshiping consoles on the account of pcs.

not the xbox nor the ps3 max GTA, actually, running it on medium-high on a decent PC provides better experience, go to the official website if you don't believe me.

 

There is no max/medium/low spec for consoles lmfao.
That's why games are ported from one console to the next.
The game is optimized to use the hardware to the fullest on the specific console it is for.
The pc version, obviously, is a universal copy that is not optimized for a specific gpu/cpu/ram amount, this is why a computer with better hardware than a ps3/360 will obviously look better and run better. Thus the fight to run it better starts. The game is very cpu heavy from the amount of ai all over the place. That is why ps3 rarely ever will lag in intense situations and the 360 will choke due to its 3ghz tricore IBM cpu.

 

Heh the PS3 actually only runs the game in 640P then upscaled it unlike the xbox verson, the PS3 has more cpu level power for the AI and physics though. Graphically a proper PC can or eventually can max the game graphically. CPU wise most people wont have the power.

GTA4 on a less than 3 GHz C2D is a horrible experience, but as proven in benchmarks it doesnt take a 280 to play it nicely 9800 will do it fine given a quad.

Crysis is multi core optimized according to the packaging. If this is true then it itself should not care about the number of cores but more of its calculations being processed fast enough.

A game developed to only executed and sync 2 threads at a time exclusivley will not perform as well on a slower quad core. A game optimized for multiple threads can take advantage of a quad core does not mean it will. Programatically if more than 2 threads are being executed at the same time then more than 2 cores is optimal to a certain extent.

To be fair all the article i read on games not being quad ready were a bit over 2 years ago many games have come out since many more patched.

 

Quads rule!
End of story!

 

LOL the irony, thanks for the response to the comment you say your not going to respond too.

If you had posted something more casual like "Are dual cores better than quad core for gaming" or "My reasons for thinking dual core is better than quad core for gaming" You know you would have started off right.

However you did not, you made a very bold statement that you had placed as factual information even though it is false, I happen to not like people that spread false information, it spreads like a plauge. So I have no trouble being bold back at you and telling you flat out your wrong and I have proof to back it up.

 

Too bad a q9000 and all other quad cores are 45W TDP, they do however perform better unless you're strictly using the quad core for say the internet and playing warcraft 3. Otherwise q9000 weee

 

I think 45W tdp is a pretty good trade off for twice the processing power (The extreme edition duals I think are also 45W). As for heat those laptops equipped with quads will be designed to cope with it.

 

LOL, quad core CPU and play 2 games at a time with half of the video card for each game?

 

Just wait for the 6 core it'll be the next hot thing

 

And the start of, 4 cores clocked higher is better than 6 lower clocked ones.

 

lol

my personal guess is that they'll go from 4 to 8 cores in the mobile sector, but I could be wrong.

 

I7 ftw and micro liquid cooling