Is quad core really worth it?

I am on the verge of updating my notebook CPU from a dual core P9700 (2.8GHz Core 2 Duo) to a Q9200 (2.4GHz Quad Core). It will basically be a same cost swap, i.e. buy the quad for same price I can get for my dual core. The dual core is powerful but low Watt, so good for extended battery life.

But will a quad core really make much improvement in games?

 

Depends on the games. Some games show marginal differences while others will show vast improvements. In general though, it's accepted that in most recent games, a quad will be beneficial.

 

With recent games there could be a high fps difference. With old games im not sure it matters

 

Yeah it is absolutely worth it. Besides you can probably easily fsb OC it to 2.8Ghz or so that it still matches your old core2 clock for clock . Your system will be nicely future proof and if you end up selling in a year or so it will be worth more.

Old games no difference but certainly won't degrade performance. Newer games there will be an improvement.

As for power saving remember undervolting is your best friend especially with a quad. However yes your battery life will take a hit no matter what you do. You simply have to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of quad vs duo for what you want to use it for and decide whether to sacrifice the battery life for more power. While you game do you usually plug it in? If so then battery life doesn't matter too much a downclocked, undervolted Q9200 won't use alot of power on battery.

 

No, it's not worth it. I got the Q6600 and could have gotten a 3ghz c2d instead. I thought to myself back then that four cores should be more future proof than two cores. Who am I kidding, being future proof in the technology world is impossible. Also, game wise, not too many games even use four cores.

 

Maybe not presently but that is changing soon enough. From now pretty much You are right about it being practically impossible to be future proof in the tech world but his upgrade gives him twice the cores without losing money therefore a worthwhile upgrade.

 

False.

Recent games off the top of my head: Bad Company 2, Bioshock 2, Prototype, Dawn Of War 2, Dragon Age, Risen, Mass Effect 2, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call Of Priyapat, Borderlands, Shattered Horizon, GTA IV, Saints Row 2.....

 

Unfortunately the Sager/Clevo I have doesn't really overclock from what I've been reading. From my comparison with Laptop Nut between a 2.0GHz Quad (Q9000) and my 2.8GHz Dual Core (P9700) it's apparent that the lower clock speed isn't hindering much. But just hard to give up the raw processing power of the 2.8GHz for a 2.4GHz.

I'm plugged in when I game and only occasionally unplug for general work stuff, but would hate to lose much battery time. But I do plan on undervolting anyhow.

 

For games that aren't that CPU intense, you won't notice the difference most likely.
On the other hand, in those that are more cpu dependant or in software that demands raw cpu power and supports multiple cores/threads ... oh yes.
I would say it's a good investment either way.

 

In a game like GTAIV which enjoys CPU power, your fps might get twice as big or something lol... and more games like that are obviously to come so yeah if you got the money.

 

often times reviews don't take note of this, but how many of you actually close down all applications besides your game when gaming? this is where having multiple cores works nicely since applications that do support multi-threading won't hog all of your system resources on one core where a game might be running.

you might be losing 400 mhz in raw speed, but take into consideration the architecture and the greater ability to do multi-threaded tasks, then you will see that quad cores are quite beneficial, especially in the long run (for intensive computing that is).

 

I do, all the time. Even when i'm doing light stuff, it's why i don't use antivirus programs.

 

lol couldnt imagine closing everything, everytime i play a game...

 

Well, even though I have lots of background tasks running, usually they're just consuming memory and not CPU cycles. Plus will Win7 manage tasks appropriately, as in if they're running will it switch it to a lesser used core, say if I start a game that supports two cores/threads, or is everything still going to Core 0?

 

Apparently Windows 7 was designed to make intelligent use of Cores so should do exactly what you described. I have been pro Quad ever since they were released though lol.

I do think they are worth it but since you will be coming from a higher clock rate, you will only notice the difference in CPU intensive games and in multitasking. My favourite game is GTA IV so I have always had a reason for going for a Quad. Take my current system for example, I get 52 fps and above in GTA IV at native resolution and high settings, when I disable either virtual or logical Cores, the frame rate dips to 20 fps with stuttering.

Quads also allow you to play more poorly optimised games from lame console ports too. Battlefield 2 Bad Optimised..... I mean Bad Company I keep on hearing isn't playable without a Quad in certain situations.

 

Sorry for the off-topic, but:
LaptopNut, how your new system compares to the older one? I have a m860etu and was wondering if the jump in performance would be that great.

 

Well Bad Company 2 is one I'm considering regarding quad core although it seems they've greatly improved dual core support. I ordered the chip, so we'll see how it goes. I guess I can at least try it and if I'm not happy replace my P9700.

 

With a decent heat sink you can clock the Q6600 at around 3.2ghz without problems.... Best overlocking / price quad core CPU

 

I am getting the Q9200, and my Sager can't overclock.

 

I have sent you a pm instead, don't want this thread to drift off topic lol.

 

Forgive me, but GTA IV is a poor choice of comparison because it's a BAD console port.
Any decently developed and optimized game should be able to run on Core2Duo without problems unless it's a serious breakthrough in the gaming field.

 

Supreme Commander can benefit from a quad

 

GTA IV is not exactly a bad port. It has a lot to do with the fact that it was initially developed around the exotic multi-core solutions of the consoles, which may have made it difficult to expect it to run well on a dual core.

 

I've got a laptop C2D T8300 2.4GHz, and a desktop C2Q Q9400 2.66GHz. All I know is that my laptop is constantly being throttled by the CPU in CPU intensive games such as TF2 and L4D2, but my desktop C2Q completely kills those games.

 

Quadcore FTW.

I mean, two is better than four!!!!!!!!!!! 4 > 2 DUrh!!!!!






Seriously. Save your money though. If you gotta ask, then it isn't worth it.

 

How did you determine that 600MHz more on two cores would have made a big difference? Sorry, I have to ask these kinds of questions.

-----

As far as I'm concerned, the high-clocked dual-core vs. the lesser-clocked quad-core is a dead, gone, and over with argument. It has been argued so many times here, I lost count long ago. Get the quad.
To those who want to nitpick the "get the quad" statement, the only exception are if a) you care about battery life and/or b) if by some chance you run applications that use 1-2 cores and no more, and need absolute maximum processing power on two cores for that application. Barring those, the quad is the way to go.

Then of course there is the question of whether an upgrade is actually necessary . . . and I agree with the statement earlier in this thread that if you have to ask, it is likely not worth it. Unless you know your CPU is a bottleneck - which is not all that often the case based on what I have seen of people asking such questions - then the CPU upgrade will to next to nothing for you (and I guess it would not be an "upgrade" by anything other than definition ).

 

Thanks Chaz. I guess I'm just old school with the "speed wins" mentality. I haven't been able to keep as educated as I'd like on all the technology the past couple of years. I just haven't seen anything compelling from an OS standpoint that proves that Windows 7 manages it appropriately to make it beneficial. In theory I know it makes a lot of sense, but in reality I don't know.

I guess the "if you have to ask..." mentality doesn't necessarily apply here either. Because I haven't really dealt with quad's in a performance environment (i.e. gaming) to see if it really improves things. It's kind of like not wanting to try pistachio ice cream because it just doesn't sound interesting to you, until you eat it, then you gain ten pounds because you can't stop.

But I ordered the chip anyhow and am going foward with it. I also put a quad core Q9550 (2.83GHz) in my desktop to replace my E8400 3.0GHz dual core. So far so good. To be honest, I bought the Q9200 for $250, I shoiuld be able to sell my P9700 for $300, I bought the Q9550 for $170, and should be able to sell my E8400 for about $100. So in the end it's a wash, maybe $20-40 out of my pocket for a quad core upgrade on both my desktop and laptop.

In that case, I suppose it's a no brainer.

Thanks for everyone's help.

 

The "if you have to ask, then it is not worth it" forces you to examine exactly what are your goals and what exactly are the barriers.

Currently, your goal is better gaming performance. Is your barrier not enough cores? If it isn't your barrier, then it is not worth it. Simple enough.

It's a simple and essential exercise because we as human beings are terrible at discerning performance from preference. You can thank evolution for that.

Edit:

Your ice cream analogy isn't that accurate in this case. It is more like I like pistachio ice cream. Will getting more make me happy and content? Moving to a quad core isn't some magical new world. It's a mere speed increase.

 

I feel so sad with my gimped G51. Stupid Worst Buy got a buggered motherboard revision.

And Wingnuts analogy does make sense, if you modify it a bit. If he's only ever eaten low-sugar icecream (!), he wouldn't know what he was missing. But the moment he tastes the pistachio, he's going to go nuts (no pun intended) over it and keep seeking out quads.

And since quads are the way of the future, that should be how it goes.

Hmm. I've played Left 4 Dead with a P7350 CPU (mildly overclocked, granted), and I didn't notice much of a slowdown anywhere. Is your GPU up to the task?

 

You can add COD MW2 to the list. I think Quads is the way to go, although i dont feel a need atm, but for certain my next laptop will have a quad.

 

all you guys who accept the ice cream analogy are missing the point here.

as stated above, there is a problem where you are not differentiating preference from performance.

this is actually really easy.

the cases where a somewhat faster clocked dual core processor will outperform a quad core processor in real world performance are slim.

why?

1. most gaming tasks aren't bottlenecked by the processor at all, but by the GPU.

2. most desktop applications are exceptionally fast on any modern cpu

3. of those particular things which are not already blazingly fast on any cpu, most scale well up to 4 cores, and so the quad core will outperform the dual core.

4. again, the only circumstance where you would rationally want a fast dual core over a somewhat slower quad core is:

- optimizing battery life for a mobile device

- particular tasks (exceedingly rare) that can only be split across 2 processing cores AND you need as much performance as possible out of your CPU, because your CPU is the bottleneck of the task. such a situation is unlikely in the real world, you would need synthetic benchmarks to show this.

so, it isn't about preference (for better tasting ice cream, dual cores, or quad cores).

it is all a number game. the quad core is more powerful overall in most situations. even more importantly- any modern processor is usually enough to handle common games.

 

But if Wingnut doesn't have experience with quad cores, he can't really have a preference, towards performance or otherwise.

At least from what we're telling him.

 

Just a small comment here.. most of the games that claims using 4 cores are actually just using more threads, which is not the same at all.

Some Core i5 and i7 have HT which means each core can process more than just one thread, but since almost nobody knows how this actually works (I can quote a pcsx2 coder here if needed ^_~) HT is in fact not so beneficial and 4 cores are not actually much needed.

A lot of these is just marketing. People believes games uses 4 cores while actually they use only one or sometimes 2. They use more threads, yes, and you might see your 4 cores working when playing a game just because the OS balances the load to keep temp and TDP under control.

Edit: I forgot to say... that anyway, if you can get a quad core you should get it, like if you are buying a new computer. In your particular case, I don't think you will see much of a difference, but if you ain't loosing money, then why not?

Most people don't ever use the full power of their rigs. And games are much much more limited to GPU, thats even another reason not to get too excited about this "more cores" war. Because for now its just that. And by the time 4 cores reaaally do make a difference, you probably will already be switching your "old" lappy.


Edit: The last one I promise. You can check this by checking the individual core loads while playing any of those games that "support 4 cores". You will see 1 core being trashed (100%) and the other 3 at about 20-35%. Most games uses only one core still now!! And people falls into marketing strategies.. anyways, the only game that probably uses more than one core is GTA IV because its a port of XBOX 360, but still, XBOX 360 is a 3 core console, not 4 =p

 

All I know is that my 9800mgts should handle bf bc2, yet its my duel core stopping it from doing that, as well as gta4 and maybe total war.

So it depends on wt game u want to play. If u are getting one of those I listed above than quad is for sure worht it.

 

I have seen that exact behaviour you describe in gaming many times on the standard Core2Quads. However, lets not forget that the new mobile i7's don't have this issue anymore since they can and will scale to how ever many Cores they need to.

The Quad Vs Dual Core debate is more about the last gen.

 

It was the CPU that was bottlenecking in the Bc2 game but many say they no longer have issues after the recent update that optimises for Dual Core.

 

that's true- the new i7's make it even more valid, since they can shut down individual cores and upclock the remaining cores.

 

That's why reviewers take such painstaking amounts of time devoted to benchmarks. So that you don't have to buy a quadcore to find out if they will be helpful to you.

 

^this +rep.

 

Ok, guys I get it. Don't keep patting each other on the back. Benchmarks only tell part of the story. I guess I know they offer "better" performance in general, but due to the lower clocks I don't want to sacrifice there either. I know from the benchmarking we did for q9000 vs P9700 the Q9000 stood it's ground against the P9700 with a 800MHz faster clock.

I guess it's kinda like being on dial-up and telling people that 768k DSL is so much better. They know in theory it's faster, but don't know what they're missing until they try it.

Either way, thanks everyone, I'm going quad core, I'm looking forward to it.

 

It's your money buddy.

On another note, I think I'm gonna buy some fruit snacks for lunch.

 

Unless you want to play an lazy unoptimized port of a console game at its highest settings (cough * GTA IV * cough) a 3.0 Ghz C2D should be enough for most games.

 

More than enough in fact, because it is the GPU wich will determine how fast your game will run. And is your screen size (in pixels) + GPU the combination that will impact most on performance.

Take a C2D 2.8 + GTX260 and an i7 820QM 1.73 + G330M for example... guess who'll be faster?

In games, in PC games, GPU is much much much more important.

Let me quote this:

Again. If you wanna play, take a look at GPU first, then memory, then CPU.

 

I have ordered the G73, the GPU is supposedly the most powerful and at least on a par with GTX 260m, 8 gig of ram so set for years theer and the cpu is i7. I condidered a lesser machine with decent GPU and CPU but because I want to edit video, I HAD to have the 4 cores, no editing and just gaming means C2DUO just fine for now but they are right, GPU first !

 

?

The 5870 will wipe the floor with the 260m. Or did you mean the GTX 260, desktop version?

 

OP: yes.

10char

 

lets put it this way: it won't make your games run worse.

that leaves two possibilities, which will vary per game.

 

Well, this is another way of looking at it. I'm just concerned because the OP is unemployed and making this move really isn't a cost effective move even if you are employed.

 

he said it was a wash cash wise.

 

I skipped the core 2 quads becuse watching the reviews between games I did not see much use of quads 1 to 5fps is not worth the amout for a cpu.