Quad core i7 vs. dual core i5 for gaming

So as I was researching computers to figure out exactly what I wanted to buy for my laptop, I was reading about dual core vs quad core processors. From what I was reading, it seems like quad cores aren't really all that great considering most applications don't use all the cores and most quad core i7s have lower clock speeds than dual core i5s.

But I've been seeing a lot of people running i7 rigs here and I've even seen posts saying that (x) game will run better on (x) computer with an i7 instead of an i5. Could anyone let me know what the differences in i5 and i7 processors are and what it means for gaming? Because from what I've read it seems like quad cores are overkill for most people and usually run at a lower Ghz.

I may not know a ton but I'm interested in learning and I do know a decent amount. Thanks.

 

For MOST games it literally makes no difference. GPU is all that matters. However, for a few games, such as Starcraft 2, CPU matters as well. However, unless you've got a high-end GPU, the GPU will still be the primary bottleneck.

Starcraft 2:

Testing StarCraft 2 Multi-threading Performance | bit-tech.net

Other games:

Intel Sandy Bridge Processors Gaming Performance: Part II - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

 

Wow so what I thought WAS right. Good glad to know my research was accurate. Btw, I read the whole notebookcheck.net article and it was very informative. Thank you.

Glad I wasn't suckered into the "oh look its a 7 instead of a 5! I'm gonna pay more cause that one has a higher number on it" lol

Watch someone come defend their i7 now

 

I wondered the same thing before purchasing my i5 2410 laptop. I used vantage to check the graphic test FPS comapared to the i7 2630 with my same card (460m). The FPS and graphics score are identical.

I dont do alot of CPU intensive tasks but i cant tell the difference between my old i7 2630 w/ 6770m against my current i5 2410 w/ 460m in normal use, such as websurfing, 1080p video streaming, music, and photoshop. Infact my i5 feels much faster know but only due to the m4 SSD.

In gaming my i5 with 460m is noticeably better. Higher FPS and much smoother gameplay at higher settings.

 

Enjoy having your i5 only last about a year for gaming.

Seriously, I don't see anyone recommending dual cores even in extremely low budget desktop builds these days.

 

Rubbish, The i5 will be fine for a while to come.

 

Like Mitlov said, for gaming, it generally doesn't matter: unless your CPU is truly pitiful, you will be bottlenecked by the GPU. That said, your above statement is wrong. Modern quad-cores are just plain better than dual-cores in every way. It's true that the base clock speeds are low, but those are only applicable when maxing out all 4 cores and even then it usually Turbos quite a bit. The clocks you should be looking at for comparison with dual-cores are the dual-core Turbo speeds.

Modern CPUs are clever: when they don't need all 4 cores, they bump up the clock speeds of the cores that they do need. Thus, the quad-cores are more or less equal to the dual-cores when only using one or two cores and much, much better when using all of them. For gaming, you're probably OK with dual-cores for another year or so, but if you use anything CPU intensive at all, the quad-core is definitely the way to go. They don't even waste power any more -- since the cores are power gated, the battery life is almost equal.

 

Quad core processors are slowly gaining terrain in gaming. An example has been give: SC2. Another couple of games that require it to run properly are GTA IV and BF:BC2 (never played it, but read here in the forums). Given GTA IV requires it, we can add LA Noire later this year.

All in all a quad processor will show its muscle when many calculations have to be made, hence RTS games get now the most benefits (SC2, and probably a few other RTS out).

From a prospect buyer perspective: if the budget allows it a quad core is a good future-proof practice (but never sacrifice the GPU, it is still the #1 priority).

A good barometer for trends in hardware specs can be followed on the Steam survey. Note the +15.45% increase in quad core processors in 18 months.

 

Dual Cores are getting older and older, they're like Pentiums now.

Get the 4 physical core CPU. And people say that the CPU doesn't matter in gaming only the GPU does, that's bogus.

It depends, some games are CPU heavy and some games are GPU heavy.

 

all i can say is you need a decent sandy with turbo to play sc2.

i have 2310m and nvidia 540m and i cant even play on lowest everything (19*12) without massive lag in big battles (i only play melee i dont even want to know how much i would lag in desert strike lol).

 

A dual core will be able to game for quite a few years, with the exception of a few CPU heavy games like GTA4.

 

Personally there is no way id spend the money on a dual core at this point in time. Just not worth it in the long run, the low cost to move to a i7 2630QM now vs later is just not worth it.

And you will do other stuff eventually other than game.

 

Dual Cores are just fine form most peoples needs. I dont see why you want to keep a laptop for gaming for over 2 years. I probably keep my laptops at the very most 1 year. Something new is alway coming out, I prefer selling my electronics and paying difference for something newer, than to try to future-proof it as much as possible and paying a large amount. My i5 performs just as good a old i7-720 doing it much cooler, and with less power consumption. Trying to future proof a computer for years not only means missing out on newer Processors and video cards, but you also lose out on stuff like usb 3.0, Sata 3 chipsets speeds, ect

 

Depends on what kind of games you are planning to play. For example Microsoft Flight Simulator X needs a very powerful CPU whereas GPU isn't very critical for it. But there aren't so much games like these out where...

 

Please note that you DON'T need a quad core for SC2 "to run properly." A quad-core CPU only boosted SC2 average FPS by 14%. Noticeable, but not necessary to run properly. Going quad core in Black Ops only improved FPS by 7%. Contrary to what people are saying about Bad Company 2, notebookcheck.net found NO difference between dual core and quad core performance.

Will a quad-core improve framerates somewhat in RTS games today and in shooters in a year or so? Yes. Will it be "necessary" for the games "to run properly"? Most likely, not for quite a few years.

 

The way I like to look at it (whether it's correct or not). The best a Dual-core will perform is on par with a quad-core, it won't perform better.

CPU is good for games that have a lot of "stuff" in them. Hence: Starcraft, TF2, GTA 4, etc etc etc.

 

Newer games do benefit from quad cores. The small % advantage over dual cores are often misleading as they tend to use powerful desktop processors. In some games, those extra 4-5 fps are the difference between a fluid gameplay and a choppy one.

Games like Deus ex HR do benefit from at least 3 cores. Same with games like BC2 where it is often the different between maintaining a high fps, and often having dips.

Most RTS will also benefit.

At this point in computer tech, a dual core is not recommended as they will most likely become the first bottleneck soon. Not to mention that overall a quad core is a tad bit snappier for general multitasking. This only applies if you will use anything that requires performance, not just gaming.

 

I don't think the extra few FPS make such a difference, but that was a point that notebookcheck article totally ignored: the fluidity difference between a quad and a dual core (albeit, not on many games TODAY). For example, going back to GTA IV, the tests reported in this forum in 2008-2009 showed that even though a powerful C2D could achieve similar framerates than a quad, the fluidity was quite better in the quad core.

While I am not disagreeing in your general conclusion, which is also supported by the steam HW survey I provided in an earlier post, note that the article you posted earlier concluded that getting a quad core today is not a bad idea (given the current price performance ratio).

 

Strictly for gaming, there might not be enough of a difference between the two to justify an upgrade. However, if it's within your budget (since it's generally not terribly expensive to step up to the 2630QM from any i5), it's probably one of the best all-around upgrades you can buy -- for now, and especially for the future. Just don't go taking out a loan for it though.

 

The way computer gaming is going Id figure we will be lucky to have developers put the time and effort in making pc games better and more demanding. We will probably be lucky to get console ports from time to time.

 

I was on a strict budget when I picked up my laptop so it was usually a sacrifice of GPU for the i7, so I went with the smart choice of better GPU instead of a better processor. For me an i5 is just fine. I get that in a couple years having a quad core will be a lot more useful. When it comes time where I am not getting the performance I want from my computer, then ill upgrade.

I'm even considering building myself a desktop. I already have $500 if I wanted to do that. But what I'll do is work with my laptop for a couple years first and save my money in the meantime. Then when my time comes where I have the extra money, I'll buy myself a desktop with great specs and use my current laptop for portability.

Btw, to the poster who said that battlefield bc2 suffers with a dual core, it runs great on my laptop. I run it at med fluently, can push it to high even, and it looks pretty damn nice.

 

While I did see that, I have a slightly different rule of thumb:

If you're a real-time-strategy player, probably spring for the quad-core regardless of your GPU (framerates can dip when massed carriers unleash interceptors, regardless of graphics detail; the quad-core should help with this).

If your gaming machine has a 560M or better, spring for the quad core CPU to match up with it. (What the NotebookCheck article was talking about, I think, as they were talking about different CPUs in a Clevo-based machine with a 560M).

If your gaming machine is in the 540M, 555M, etc range and you're not primarily an RTS gamer, I'd stick with the dual core. The extra $100 makes a much bigger price difference on a $900-$1200 casual-gaming laptop than it does on a $2000 gaming rig, and with that sort of GPU, the GPU is going to be a bottleneck far before you notice even a minimal difference.

 

Yeah I actually only spent 750 on my laptop new from newegg. But if I had the money, of course I would go with the higher end GPU, CPU, and displays. I gotta say, I am a budget computer gamer and this IS my gaming rig. And its the best computer I've had so I'm completely satisfied with what it can do. (did I mention the price lol)

 

Yeah, for $750, I think you shouldn't bat an eye at the i5 and the 540M. They're a perfectly good CPU and GPU for the price and well suited to each other. It's easy to say that you should get a quad-core i7 if you've already got a 560M and a 1080p screen etc etc etc...but that's all a pipe dream if you've got a $750 budget. The machine you have is an excellent gaming-capable system on a tight budget.

 

Regarding the comments about BC2 suffering with Dual Core, this used to be the case until they patched it.

When it was first released many people with a Dual Core suffered terrible performance while Quad Core owners had no problem. Nowadays a Dual Core is fine for BC2.

GTA IV still remains the only game that I know of that really needs a Quad to perform fluidly unless you have a really high clocked Dual but even then it is not as good.

 

^^ not only that, but either one of the last 26x or first 27x forcewares improved dual core performance quite a bit (to be more exact, better optimized the drivers for dual core systems).

 

That makes sense. I always see Bad Company 2 mentioned first and foremost as a game where you need a quad-core, yet notebookcheck.net found literally no difference between dual-core and quad-core.

And I'm able to run Bad Company 2 smoothly (albeit at low graphics settings) with a 2008-vintage 2.53 GHz Core 2 Duo and a 9600M GT. So all this talk about "you won't be able to play games in a year if you get an i5 instead of an i7" is, in my opinion, Chicken Little. You may or may not be able to play games on "ultra" graphics settings at 1080p, but you'll still be able to play games for years with an i5.

 

Well in a few years single GPU solutions of today (high end) won't likely play the games of 2013. So it's a moot point to "future proof" with a quad core. However, quad core is nice for some games that are coming out soon. I will be surprised if it doesn't run much smoother with BF3 and MW3. I would be interested in seeing dual Vs Quad in games like Crysis 2 and other games that are heavy ported from consoles as they use more than one core (I think). There is nothing wrong with a dual core today, but a lot of good games that will be showcasing PC graphics later this year will likely take advantage of ALL the processing power of the 5870/6970/6990/480/580m solutions AND 4 cores will 'likely' help.

However I agree that if one is on a budget, go for a fast dual core and a beefy GPU as CPU's are not bottle necking most games. When the new counter-strike comes out, I wouldn't be surprised with quad core support, same with l4d 3. Not that they require crazy GPU's but Source is a HEAVILY based CPU engine. I am sure the Rage engine will likely use quad core. Lest not forget desktops are running 6 cores and 8 core CPU's will become more prominent.

Finally, most people do other things besides gaming; even if you aren't heavy into programming. I find that having fraps, hwmonitor, music and gaming at the same time my CPU usage is being used with all cores. It doesn't hurt to have a quad core system and it does help with other multi-tasking IMO.

 

lmao at these posts.

their is 1 game that needs a quad core, so what are you guys rambling on about

 

there is more than one game besides GTA IV. But who buys a computer for just today's games? Thinking BF3 will play the "same" on dual Vs quad is a big assumption. It's one I wouldn't make when looking at gaming trends. At one point in 2004, people honestly thought "over one gig ram is overkill for gaming." Very soon after, 2gig became standard. People said the same thing about Dual Vs single core a few years ago. Now the same argument is dual Vs quad. Logic would say, get where the trends are going; Quad. Short-term dual is still fine in MOST circumstances. Games are coming out in 2011/2012 where likely quad will be utilized. It doesn't take much speculation when you look at the engines and which ones are more CPU intensive. Source, though a dated engine, is VERY VERY CPU dependent. Their next gen games will most likely utilize quad core. They already show good boost from single to "multicore rendering." Why NOT get quad core? It isn't that much more??

Long story short: If an extra few hundred for a GPU or CPU is a limiting factor for a gaming laptop, you have two options:
1. Get a desktop
2. Stick with consoles.

If you have to really budget out between dual Vs quad over a 100 bucks or so..maybe laptop gaming is out of reach. Honestly, gaming laptops that are not very very high end.....definitely outdate quickly so you may as well get the best you can afford to get a few years out of it.

 

Your rule of thumb is a bit convoluted: basically just say "if you're an RTS gamer get the quad".

Now, I read The Witcher 2 requirements and it recommends a quad core (minimum 2.5 gHz dual core). Is it playable fluidly in a dual core?

Edit: Also mafia 2 recommends a quad, anyone has info on it?

 

Hmm ... I have a question ???

What about hyper-threading ??? aint any gaming developer going to utilize that ...

 

Mafia 2 Runs perfectly on my i5-2410 with 460m @ 800mhz/1400mhz at max settings. Havent checked the FPS but should be easily above 30.

 

You can just tell that statistic was made up on the Spot. BO was made to be run by a tricore CPU (Xbox 360 has 3 physical cores) going Quad would give you a 70% estimate boost up of FPS.

 

Sorry to break it to you, but that 7% was NOT made up on the spot, and that 70% improvement in framerates while running Black Ops is a pipedream. Though it appears that I messed up the math when I got 7%. I went back, checked the math, and the actual difference is 5%.



Review Intel Sandy Bridge Processors Gaming Performance - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

40.9 FPS with an i7-2720QM. 39.0 FPS with an otherwise-identical machine using an i5-2410M. 40.9 divided by 39.0 equals 1.0487...a 5% improvement.

 

But that wouldn't be much of a rule of thumb for anyone who ISN'T an RTS gamer, would it? That's the second and third part. If you're not an RTS gamer, get the quad IF you've also got a higher-end GPU; don't bother with the quad if you've got a more modest GPU (540M, etc).

 

That's pretty blunt. For example, compare a E series dual core to a Q series. There's a huge difference, just go to the black op's PC forum, people moan about how Quad Cores magically get more performance.

The Sandy Bridge architect has nothing to do with what we're talking about, that's a new architect. For example, why isn't my M11Xs Dual Core running Black Ops at high like in Mw2? Easy, because Black Ops is highly un-optimized. Compare a i7 quad core to a Intel Dual Core. Difference is a lot because of the new architect. So this proves that changing to a new architect/brand of a Quad Core from a dual core can improve your FPS up to 70% estimate.

 

theory-crafting performance changes in this way is hardly conclusive. a benchmark would be much more straightforward and telling.

as far as quad core i7 vs dual core i5, there are two separate issues at hand.

should i upgrade from i5 version to i7? - no
should i upgrade from dual core to quad core? - yes

most games today benefit slightly from quad core, some games benefit moderately. for general use, quad core is way better. for gaming in the future (including the near future) quad core will be a better choice.

 

I had a choice between an i7 720M and an i5 580M for my current laptop, I went for the i5 on my current laptop, weirdly the i5 performed better than the i7 on a few benchmarks. It was also 1.6GHz vs 2.66GHz (2.8GHz vs 3.33GHz on Turbo).

I hope I didn't make the wrong decision. D:

 

If the OP was asking the performance difference between a Sandy Bridge quad core and a Sandy Bridge dual core, it would make sense to compare the performance between a Sandy Bridge quad and a Sandy Bridge dual, no?

If you want to compare older architectures go ahead, but that's irrelevant because the bottom line is, with Sandy Bridge CPUs, the performance difference in BO is very small.

 

Quad-core is the only way to go right now if you want to game. Dual-cores stopped making sense for gamers over a year ago.

Don't be disappointed, get a quad. I know what I'm saying. A lot of games out now need a quad to run well. (Bad Company 2, Crysis 2, Deus Ex, Flight Sim X GTA IV, Left 4 Dead 2), and in the future the number of games recommending quads will only increase.

Recommending dual-cores for gaming is BAD ADVICE.

 

Right now there is not a huge difference in gaming performance in most games. If gaming performance is the most important activity to you then you should be focusing more on the gpu. Find the laptop that fits your budget and size that has the most powerful gpu. Almost all gaming laptops have quad core cpu's now days anyway (its hard to find one that doesn't).

The fact that you are even comparing dual vs quad makes me think you are comparing laptops that only have a middle of the road gpu (something like the gt540m) if that is the case then it does not really matter what cpu you pair it with.

Take for example the xps15 (with a quad i7 and the gt540m) and the m11xr3 (ulv dual core i7 and the gt540M). The cpu m11xr3 is a dual core and it is clocked slower than the one in the xps yet it performs almost the same. If the game is playable on the quad core then it is also playable on the slower dual core. It may be true that GTA4 requires a quad core, idk, but Starcraft II doesn't show the huge difference some people claimed.

AnandTech - Bench - Mobile

Look at the cpu results and then look at the gaming results. The cpu results in the multi-threaded applications are more than 2 times faster on the quad yet the biggest gaming difference is found in L4D2 and even then its around 20%, 55fps vs 68fps. Picture for those who don't like to follow links. The alienware is the light blue results.

In this case I would rather have the slightly lower performing alienware because it is much more portable. Once again though if comparing top of the line 17" laptops where budget isn't a big concern get the quad core every time.

 

Alright I think we have things cleared up here.

Dual core works for now and won't hurt your system THAT bad VS. a quad, but if you have the money and plan on gaming in the future, quad core will work better for longer. Thanks for all the answers guys.

Side note: I needed a laptop and only had a budget of 500 but wanted to play new-ish games so I pushed my budget up to 750 to get my laptop. I researched computers and searched around for 2-5 hours a day for 2 weeks and every quad core laptop I came across sacrificed GPU for CPU. So I did make the sensible choice. And to all you who say "if you game at all, you need [x]", some people don't have the money to afford better things. I game just fine on my laptop. No, its not 1080p, no I don't have a top of the line GPU or CPU, but I'm perfectly fine with what I have and all the games Ive wanted to play run on it. So back off with that crap. It's annoying really.

 

Right on man! I couldn't agree more get what works for you.

 

C'mon, you asked the question, no need to feel pushed by everyones opinions . After all, the rules of hardware for gaming haven't changed, they priority is always:
1) GPU
2) CPU
3,4) RAM and HDD

 

Dual-core DOESN'T work for gaming right now. You will be disappointed if you attempted to play new games on a dual-core right now.

 

BS, I've played all those games without issue.

 

A lot of these games in your list were released long before core i5/7 processors were released. At their release, they definitely showed a benefit with quad core processors, even a large benefit. However, fast dual core processors still handled these games fine, except maybe GTA4.

The point is, that now we are using core i processors, which are much faster. A dual core "core i" processor is a completely different story than a dual core "core 2" processor.

It will handle any game, although some will have performed somewhat better with a quad. To say it doesn't work with new games is just plain wrong. Especially a modern core i5 (sandy bridge) where the performance is huge from the start, and it has hyper threading. Seriously look at the bench below for deus ex. You're just wrong. Sorry.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/deus-ex-human-revolution-performance-benchmark,3012-7.html

note that the core i3 did well. it's a dual core processor. Then phenom ii x2 struggled with a 25 fps minimum framerate, but that is MUCH slower than a core ix dual core even with hyper-threading off. It's definitely a game targeted for quad core performance, but it would still run on a fast dual core, easily. Especially one with hyper threading. You'll outperform the core i3.

Even a pentium g850 (low end sandy bridge, dual core, no HT) would be a decent performer in games.

 

Is hyperthreading used in games?

 

Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't HT managed at the CPU level. There is no need to code for it. If it can be used, it will be regardless of the software running. The OS itself sees the CPU can receive 4 threads and so will send 4 threads to it if it can.