CPU difference in gaming.

Ive been trying to find something definitive about this.
I know rts games use a lot more cpu than fps, bla bla bla.

But what kind of performance difference could I expect from say a T9500 @ 2.53 GHz and a Q9000 2.00 GHz?

Thanks lads

 

I'd have to say that depends on the game

If the game is optimised/coded to use all 4 cores you should see an improvement

However if it only uses two cores that might yield worse performance because the computer would see dual [email protected] vs dual [email protected]

Correct me if I'm wrong though
Hope this helps

 

what RaYYaN said.

However, I'd also say you would probably not notice the difference in most games unless you were doing benchmarks.

What's the video card that's going to be paired with the CPU, and what game?

It's almost like comparing a van and a semi carrying balloons.

Also, note that the Core 2 Quad will use more power and emit more heat.

 

Since USPS lost my Asus G71G-A1, I can have it replaced with the Q1 version.
Just a small picture on most games since 2007. Such as Bioshock, Crysis Warhead, many other of the big titles that I have missed out on...

I am just contemplating changing the order to something else but am really confused lol.
I see the MSI is very powerful now but many of my friends with MSI have had problems

 

Few are the games which really take full advantage of multi-core technology, let alone quads. If you google it a bit, you'll see that somes reviews/comparisons conclude that the difference is very minimal and it'd be a better "bang for the buck" to get a higher clocked dual core vs a lower clocked quad core. Games just aren't at the stage where they'd actually take advantage of such technology.

Really, if it's gaming you have in mind, no need to dish out such money on a higher end CPU. The GPU in notebooks will likely be a limiting factor before the CPU. That being said, it'd depend on your other uses of the notebook.

 

Well, I do a lot of photo shopping and I before I ordered the G71G A2 model which had Duo 2.53GHz and 2x 320GB Harddrives. For the same money now I can get a Quad Core 2.00GHz and 2x 250GB Harddrives.

I dont know what else I can really get though in the 17" category that is so good bang for the buck. I am thinking that maybe I should open my options to the 15" as well...

 

Well do you have to spend the same amount of money? Why not just get what you initially wanted and just save the extra cash?

If you really want to dish out the money, then an upgrade in GPU will likely yield better performance than one in CPU in general terms. Only really CPU intensive tasks(which PSing can be part of, but you'd have to really really push the program hard) will likely gain a performance increase on a quad core.

Then again, if you want, you can get the quad to future proof the rig.

 

i'm working with PS quite a lot, and not the optimized CS3 but the heavy CS2, and my t7250 2.0GHz with 2Gb RAM copes really well with it, even on multiple images with over 40 layers. More than that, my old t2330 1.6 was not bad at it either.

 

i'd get a quad

 

Im not spending any more cash, its just the difference in the model that is now the same price

 

If gaming is your primary, take the T9500. A 2.0Ghz Quad is weak from a gaming perspective. Now if your notebook allows CPU overclocking, take the Q9000.

 

depends on the game, if it only utilises 2 cores, then you will lose performance, if it utilises all 4 they you will gain a significant amout of performence.

correct me if i am wrong

fattail95

 

If you are a big RTS player i'd go quad, only because they are so CPU heavy. Games like Supreme Commander are starting go take advantage of quad cores. But if your more of a FPS guy then get the best video possible and a nice speedy dual core.

 

Hmmm, Im a FPS player actually...
Hard decisions... The thing is that the Dual Core options has already been cancelled, so my only option would be to get a different maker...