Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Dualcore 3.0Ghz or Quadcore 2.1Ghz


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 shadowdrummer46

shadowdrummer46

  • Members
  • 9 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:41 AM

Posted 19 November 2011 - 06:26 PM

I was originally thinking about just upgrading to a dual-core 3.0 GHz processor, but then saw a new PC with a quad-core AMD Quad-Core A6-3600. My question is this: Will the Quad-Core have a noticeable improvement for gaming over the Dual-core?

I've read online and it seems that I'm almost better off with a dual-core because most PC games aren't optimized for more than two processors, or at least don't perform better; sometime actually performing worse.

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 DJBPace07

DJBPace07

  • BC Advisor
  • 4,869 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:10:41 AM

Posted 19 November 2011 - 08:04 PM

That depends. If you are running programs that can use all four cores then yes a quad core can offer an improvement over a dual. That is, assuming the program was coded properly to adequately harness the power of all four cores instead of putting most of the load on two and very little on the remaining two. Games in particular rarely use four cores, games that have been ported from consoles with little PC optimization will almost always use two. Games designed for the PC first can be better optimized. Another issue with your example is the actual speed. For a gaming PC, I usually suggest a speed of 2.8 GHz. regardless of the number of cores. This allows for a decent amount of speed without spending too much money for high-end processors.

3939.png

 


#3 shadowdrummer46

shadowdrummer46
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 9 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:41 AM

Posted 19 November 2011 - 09:10 PM

Well the PC I have now is able to be upgraded to a dual core 3.0GHz or im looking at a few different desktops. One has a quad core 2.1GHz and the other has a 3.3ghz Pentium i3, which i think is a dual core.

I realize if i get a new PC ill need a new graphics card. I'm looking to get a rig that can play new games like Skyrim and Shogun 2. Doesn't need to be anything to extravagant, you can see the ones i was looking at through the links above. Any suggestions?

#4 killerx525

killerx525

    Bleepin' Aussie


  • Members
  • 7,220 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia
  • Local time:01:41 AM

Posted 20 November 2011 - 02:45 AM

I would get the HP because it has better inbuilt graphics then Intel's one. Also Pentium and i3 are different processors, they are not the same.

>Michael 
System1: CPU- Intel Core i7-5820K @ 4.4GHz, CPU Cooler- Noctua NH-D14, RAM- G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB Kit(4Gx4) DDR3 2133MHz, SSD/HDD- Samsung 850 EVO 250GB/Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB/Seagate Barracuada 3TB, GPU- 2x EVGA GTX980 Superclocked @1360/MHz1900MHz, Motherboard- Asus X99 Deluxe, Case- Custom Mac G5, PSU- EVGA P2-1000W, Soundcard- Realtek High Definition Audio, OS- Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit
Games: APB: Reloaded, Hours played: 3100+  System2: Late 2011 Macbook Pro 15inch   OFw63FY.png





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users