processor for gaming

how much better would a 2ghz core2duo with 4mb cache be over the same processor with 2mb cache

will there be a difference in gaming or general applications

 

A very very small one, hardly even noticeable. You'd only notice a difference in really cpu dependant applications like serious photoshopping or encoding, and veen then the difference wouldn't be huge.

 

It depends, but probably yes. It would be worth the money most likely depending on the actual price.
--Hope I could Help

 

What about 2.4ghz quad vs c2d 2.4ghz !?

 

Quad only really help if you want to play supreme commander.

 

The GPU will be the limiting factor for all games. So long as you have at least a dual core...the exact processor really does not matter much.

Plus, no quad core processor will fit in a notebook (yet!).

 

Uhm... yes dude... a quite a few have quad... just go look on xoticpc.com...

 

I'm only showing the Sager NP9261 as having a quad core...and it is using a DESKTOP processor.

Alright fine...I'll put it this way. A mobile quad core is likely going to have a different pin out that the processors currently available. That, combined with the extra cooling and power requirements...makes it unlikely to work with smaller notebooks (at least for now). Most likely current Santa Rosa notebooks will not be able to use it due to the (most likely) different pin layout.

 

Gotcha

CRYSIS DEMO TOMOROW!!!! w00t!!!

Whens 8800m btw? I hope before crysis launch I cant really wait too long... I just want a laptop that will play crysis at 1280*800 or 1440*900 and maybe 1600*1050 (I dont get the point of extreme resolution btw) at maxed out everything minimum 25fps

 

how about you make your own thread then and not hijack his...ughh....as long as its dual core your set

 

so referring to the frst post there is much of a difference

 

also this is off topic but when do u think a new 8000 series gpu for 15.4 inch notebooks willl arrive and is it worth waiting for one

 

Well, in reference to the OP question: I don't think twice the cache is going to help a lot. It might some, but you'd get more out of an upgrade to more RAM or a faster Core 2 (which also comes with more cache).

Most of the time though, it isn't going to make any difference though so don't sweat it.

 

thanks for the help

 

After time I found out that super gpu's (lol) never come out for 15.4 inch lappies

Well... lets see... What if Nvidia wont be launching a new gpu before January? Maybe well see DX10.1 mobile gpu ?! To keep up with mobile power... ? Would be extremely nice wouldnt it ?

 

Any Quad-Core will out-preform any Core 2 Duo. But only nessesary for Gamers. you will see a difference.

Hope I could help

 

Sure...a quad core can perform better than a dual core. But most times, you don't use the full power of a CPU anyway. Having a quad core isn't going to make firefox run any faster.

But with regards to gaming, this is outright false. Sure, you might get a little extra performance as the CPU does control the AI and some PC<->GPU communication. But any and all games are bound by the constraints of the GPU, plain and simple. The GPU draws the polygons, renders the screen, etc, etc. Not the CPU.

 

And the fact that very few games are optimized for multiple threads/cpus/cores.

 

gamers will probaby not see the difference between quad core and dual core.

a handfull of games are just now getting optimised to use dual core, but only a few that I know of support quad core.

As long as your cpu is not bottlenecking your video card you fine when it comes to games.

Only 2 games that I can think of off hand take enough cpu power to where a stronger cpu will help. FSX and Supreme Commander.

FSX uses alot of cpu power due to all the phisics and locations and goegraphy. While SC uses alot for the AI and things like that.

Both of those games gained a huge boost when dual core was supported. SC supports quad core and higher (32 core max I think) but its already been proven that the difference between quad core and dual core is nothing because the game only has 2 main threads (a thread is what the cpu works on basicly) so the game spawns extra threads for the extra cores but they are not nearly as important or as big as the 2 main ones.

Its very possible the game will run better on a 2.8ghz dual core than the 2.4ghz quad core. Because in essense 2 of those 4 cores are doing nothing, so the leaves the other 2 working at 2.4ghz while the dual core hums along at 2.8ghz and then is faster.


Processing tho is a whole new world, alot of encoders and things are supporting X cores and can evenly divide up the workload between cores. So say you were decoding a dvd rip on your computer the quad core could very realisticly be 2x faster than the dual core at the same speed.

More cores or faster cpus are really geared for people that do huge multitasking or encoding and things like that. Games for now really dont have much use for it. Plus I have no idea where the standing is right now between gpu and quad core cpus and if they can use all 4 cores to help run the gpu.

 

I'm sorry Greg, but that's just not true. It depends on the game, the settings, the GPU, and lots of other factors, but in many instances you can indeed hit a CPU bottleneck. I'm not saying the GPU isn't important, but it's not always the limiting factor.

 

I gave two good examples right above you.

 

Ahh, sorry, I hadn't reloaded my page so I didn't see your post. Yes, those are very good examples of what I was talking about.

 

The cpu limits at low resolution gaming with low setting. That's how Hardware sites determin how much the CPU affects the game. But that's only after the GPU has become MORE than enough.

 

That's true of the traditional graphically intense FPS style of games, but some modern RTS games and extremely physics heavy games can be CPU limited at high settings as well. This is well illustrated by games like FEAR that clearly distinguish between processor settings and graphics settings, so that you can minimize the CPU hit if you have an older rig. However, many games don't easily let you turn down the CPU options, and in those if you want the high graphics settings, you also have to turn on the high physics settings, which can be a problem for older CPUs.

 

I like F.E.A.R. on my laptop. I can run it on fairly high settings.

I always notice a difference when adding driver AF. If I don't have my CPU on MAX in some games, it'll be a bit laggy. It does make things look better though.

 

What your refering too is the see-saw effect, if you turn down the settings too low the gpu just chews thru the processing so easy that the cpu cant keep up.

Like you said tho even tho the cpu becomes the bottleneck it doesnt matter as your probably already in like the 100fps range and well over the performance level you need.

Aquamark 3 is a good benchmark to illustrate this effect. Since its so outdated now any current video card can tear thru it like cake. If you overclock your video card you will find your score the same or barly touched but if you overclock your cpu the score goes up by a large margin directly in a linear pattern with the cpu speeds.

I have a published article explaining cpu/gpu bottlenecks that I may hunt down and post.