Dual vs Quad , Gaming, is there a difference?

[ZenOps]

I never really did shut off all other apps when running games. I just never loaded them in TSR to start with with the old single core.

Much later, I created custom logins "Clean" and "Internet", where clean would be for games and absolutely nothing unnecessary running, including services like the "Wireless Zero Config". The internet login had the software firewall with no exceptions and active viruscanning, and all the other TSRs that are useful when working.

Admittedly, I did it more to save memory than actually get any benifit from the CPU.

Now that memory is also at rockbottom pricing, I've just gotten lazy I guess.

 

[rls669]

I remember when Falcon 4 first came out it was such a system destroyer that people were bypassing the Windows 98 shell and booting directly into the game to get a few more fps.

 

[actompkins]

Dualcore vs Quad ,
in gaming is there any real noticable difference?

Since I own a qx6700 I am going to say absolutely.The quad is the way to go.

 

[actompkins]

I remember when Falcon 4 first came out it was such a system destroyer that people were bypassing the Windows 98 shell and booting directly into the game to get a few more fps.

Same with Quake 3. Some guys I know were spending like 5 minutes at start up just shutting off everything but the systray to get a few more frames. Sorry for the double post but I could not resist that.

 

[The-Tmann]

hmmmm....
so my 3.8 Ghz E6700 is obsolete?
=-)

 

[Al Shades]

So why would I turned off every running process when I'm already running BF2 super smooth?

For one thing, your cpu is more recent than the game you're running on it. Try doing the same thing with Crysis or FSX at ultra settings.

I remember when Falcon 4 first came out it was such a system destroyer that people were bypassing the Windows 98 shell and booting directly into the game to get a few more fps.

lol hell yes, that is the way to do it. You need to turn the comp into a console for the purpose of gaming. Get rid of that GUI/shell

 

[rahavsmt]

For one thing, your cpu is more recent than the game you're running on it. Try doing the same thing with Crysis or FSX at ultra settings.

I don't know about those two games because I don't play them and Crysis is not even out yet but Bioshock and Supreme Commander run well enough at max settings with all sort of crap running in the background.

 

[Slade]

if you have the cash for a quad, go for it, if not a core2duo with a good video card is still a good option.

for those that are clamoring "every app" needs to be shut off, show us some benchmark numbers that having every app closed will generate loads more fps.

This isn't 98 anymore, since 2k, windows has been forced to give priority to the main app focused on. My system isn't exactly the loaded type for aps running, but at the same time they aren't going to give spectacular results for fps either...

using crysis as an example is terrible, it's beta, un-optimized, and nowhere near the final build, heck dx10 hasn't been implemented yet on those builds.

 

[jgdiaz]

Tomshardware did a comparision between the two. Their test results showed that quads are in general faster than the dual cores - apparently due to the 8mb L2 cache. In their testing, the quads were on par with the duals at 200 mhz slower clocks.

I'm not saying it's conclusive, or absolute fact.

Crysis is being optimized for quads. That's reason enough for me to have one!

I changed from the E6700 to the Q6600 and even though I had the E6700 running at 3.5Ghz and now the Q6600 is running at 3.0Ghz I get the same performance on FEAR and other games as I did with the E6700 @ 3.5Ghz, so I would say the quads are faster from my own experience.