Adding Reply Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic quad core time?? Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post jamescoleman Posted at 8:30 am on May 26, 2008 so i have a pentium d now and i'm looking at a quad core. could yall tell me the experience you all have had with the quad core from intel? i read that it'll increase my gaming performance only if the game is made for multiple cores...is this correct?

Replies jamescoleman Posted at 2:43 pm on June 13, 2008 well they are expensive because i don't have the money for one right now because i'm paying for school. i've seen some that are 1000 dollars. my pentium d was 150 :) Dumbledor123 Posted at 7:34 am on June 13, 2008 Guys, quad cores cost about 250 dollars. I don't know where every one is saying they are super expensive. Yes there is some quad cores that cost about 500 bucks, but that is just a bit different specs. Also right now I don't think a true quad is out. True quad meaning 4 cores in one dye. So if you want to wait and buy true quad it will cost roughly 1k. When I bought my Pentium D it was 230 bucks. jamescoleman Posted at 7:14 am on June 5, 2008 ramman: i have a nforce 680i sli m/b pentium d processor at  3.0 ghz (stock heat sink) 2 gigs of ddr2 ram 800 mhz 7950 gt oc video card 2x cd burners 320 hdd sata 3gb 250 hdd sata 3gb 550 watt psu if you wanted to know my specs Tursi Askari Posted at 4:07 am on June 5, 2008 Quote: from Dickij03 at 3:47 am on June 2, 2008 I got a Intel q6600 (@3.22Ghz 1.45v) and i love it tbh. If you want to go dual get something like a 8400 if you want a quad go q600 (especially the g0 if you're overclocking.) I went from a 6400+ amd and there was a big difference, but then again i guess this is due to the better achitexture. A while ago people use to say, when multithreaded games didn't exist, that a dual would provide more performance since any background tasks are done on the second core. Same applies now only with games optimized for 2 cores, the background tasks run on core 3 and 4. Bar that there is no improvement in things like gaming with quad over dual. And you could just get a AMD tri-core, not sure if they are out yet? someone confirm?   Saying this though my friend has a c2d @ 3.2ghz and my c2q boots up way faster than his.. What cooling you running on the q66? AMD are shit. Intel ftw, e7200 if you are on a budget, e8x00 if you have more money. All OC well. ranman Posted at 3:20 am on June 5, 2008 Yes, your game wont run as good if it was a fast single core/dual core since many games are not made to optimize all four cores. I don't have an Intel quad core, but I have an AMD Phenom which I can multi task very well, virus scan, game, music with no hiccups. Well that just isn't true... Most newer games either have patches or already have some kind of enhancement for dual or quad core platforms... and it certainly will run faster, just about everything will run faster, than if you only had one core. COD4 I'm sure either has quad core support, or will in the near future... BF2 I'm not so sure about In terms of performance you probably won't notice that big of a difference, games are more graphics card intensive that processor intensive. Technically speaking the processor is the bottleneck for your performance (I'm assuming you have like 2 gigs of ram) but getting a quad core won't change that bottle neck unless you have a gaming motherboard... something like ASUS, let me know some stats on your comp and I'll let you know if the quad core upgrade is worth it... jamescoleman Posted at 8:13 pm on June 4, 2008 my board might support ddr3 with a bios update but i know my board supports a quad core by intel Dumbledor123 Posted at 5:03 pm on June 4, 2008 If your going to get a quad make sure your mobo supports it. If it doesn't and you want to buy a mobo get one that supports the new DDR3. jamescoleman Posted at 11:02 am on June 1, 2008 i just gotta find a list of games that support dual and quadcore (or will) Dickij03 Posted at 8:47 am on June 1, 2008 I got a Intel q6600 (@3.22Ghz 1.45v) and i love it tbh. If you want to go dual get something like a 8400 if you want a quad go q600 (especially the g0 if you're overclocking.) I went from a 6400+ amd and there was a big difference, but then again i guess this is due to the better achitexture. A while ago people use to say, when multithreaded games didn't exist, that a dual would provide more performance since any background tasks are done on the second core. Same applies now only with games optimized for 2 cores, the background tasks run on core 3 and 4. Bar that there is no improvement in things like gaming with quad over dual. And you could just get a AMD tri-core, not sure if they are out yet? someone confirm? Saying this though my friend has a c2d @ 3.2ghz and my c2q boots up way faster than his.. jamescoleman Posted at 7:51 am on June 1, 2008 yea my pentium d is still good but i don't think i'll be going to a core 2 duo anytime soon well i do plan on using my desktop to allow me to access my files from school and use linux while doing so but i'm still trying to figure out how to do it allsmiles Posted at 9:11 am on May 31, 2008 Very few games are quad core yet. Save your money and get a dual core, unless you're using your machine for something a little more serious. MemeCat Posted at 9:02 am on May 31, 2008 I would upgrade to a Core 2 Duo if anything. Your Pentium D is sufficient. jamescoleman Posted at 3:09 am on May 31, 2008 i'm waiting for the price to go down and its not gonna be 250 if i put in the order for the processor today. i'm just gonna wait it out and see what happens. obvious child Posted at 2:58 pm on May 30, 2008 So you're willing to chuck out $250+ for possibly a few seconds less load time?   Neither of the two are coded for multiprocessors. If you want to decrease load times, add more ram. Now, if we were talking about say, Sins of a Solar Empire, or Supreme Commander which are specifically designed for multicore systems, that would be a different story. jamescoleman Posted at 3:46 am on May 30, 2008 what is your definition of an average user? i play games such as call of duty4 and battle field 2 it would be nice to have these games load faster Most recent 15 of 29 previous replies displayed.