I have looked around for some info regarding the performance benefit of a similar quad over a dual core CPU. Can't find anything so I am requesting info from forum users about what performance numbers they are getting on their PCs.

As a baseline, I am using a Core 2 Duo running at 3ghz with a GTX460 1GB. I run at full hd & very high settings and get an average of 30-40fps with occasional dips down into the high teens on some maps.

If you have a Core 2 Duo or a Core 2 Quad running with a GTX460 what performance FPS are you seeing and what is your CPU speed?

Thanks.

i will gladly explain this for you.

Lets say we have two processors - one dual - the other quad. Both are running at (hypothetical situation) 3.2GHz.

In this scenario the quad core will beat the dual and offer better performance. Why you ask?
Well not only is it at the same clock speed as the dual but it has four cores on which to spread the workload.

Now lets take a look at scenario two.

Dual core at 3.2GHz
Quad core at 2.8GHz

Even though the Dual is at a higher clock speed - the quad still has the upper hand.
The power for the four cores makes up for the lower clock speed and provides better performance - like i said before - because of the shared workload.

Just picture it this way:
4 processors do the work of 2 therefore each processor does 50% less in a quad core processor.


I would recommend getting a quad core and not a six-core processor because quads are better for gaming performance overall - games utilize 4 quads easier than 6

Err yeah cheers - I know the theory.

Err yeah cheers - I know the theory.


then why did you ask?

this theory is pretty much universal for everything you know...

you won't get a massive FPS boost as - surprisingly - the GRAPHICAL PROCESSING UNIT - does all the sparkly effects. For any decant FPS boost upgrade your GPU.


And there is no way the CPU is bottlenecking the GPU in a game such as Crysis 2 - don't make me laugh!

Err yeah cheers - I know the theory.


then why did you ask?

this theory is pretty much universal for everything you know...

you won't get a massive FPS boost as - surprisingly - the GRAPHICAL PROCESSING UNIT - does all the sparkly effects. For any decant FPS boost upgrade your GPU.


And there is no way the CPU is bottlenecking the GPU in a game such as Crysis 2 - don't make me laugh!

because some games dont use quad core too good, such as wow, and dual is often on par with quad in those games

This should answer your questions...

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=269190

Graphs on page 1&2. The game scales both with cores and speed with the former having the greatest impact. More and more games are utilising 4 cores so it's a good time to ditch those dual cores!

To answer the above, with any half decent GPU you can easily be CPU limited in this game. The important thing to know is at what framerate are you being limited? If you are getting 60fps then it doesn't matter! If however you can't get above 30fps because you are on a slow dual core, you can expect a nice boost from moving either to higher speeds or better yet, more cores.

What people forget is that one or the other will always be a bottleneck. Think of it like this... You realise you have a slow cpu holding you back so you upgrade to a quad. But wait..now your gpu is holding you back. So, overclock that svcker. Great, oh but wait, the cpu is holding you back again. Well, that can be overclocked, so you do! Damn, i need a 2nd gfx card to unleash the full potential. Back and forth it goes in an endless, frustrating cycle of upgrading and overclocking. Now you've got a dual socket monster running quad-fire on a 1500w psu that's just cost you ￡4000 and at some point you realise you're actually getting 350fps. Happy yet?

There will always be a bottleneck, but once you have all the eye-candy you need, anything above 60fps is simply a waste.

then why did you ask?

this theory is pretty much universal for everything you know...

you won't get a massive FPS boost as - surprisingly - the GRAPHICAL PROCESSING UNIT - does all the sparkly effects. For any decant FPS boost upgrade your GPU.


Not the case, Crysis was supposedly optimised for multi-core systems but saw only a modest benefit to moving to a quad over a triple core and a triple was not that much better than a duo. Crysis 2 is supposed to scale much better to quads - I would guess because Crytek have spent time compartmentalizing processes to squeeze as much performance out of console systems.

Thanks DirkGently, that is exactly what I was looking for. Still if any forum users have a Core CPU and a GTX460 please post your numbers.

Also can depend on your ram. This has a lot to do with it the cache too. If you have low end and not much ram (ram stores things waiting to be processed and things that have been processed) your proc's could bottle neck your ram. Lots of scenarios that could make that happen. But mostly a quad is going to work better even at lower speeds.

I would recommend getting a quad core and not a six-core processor because quads are better for gaming performance overall - games utilize 4 quads easier than 6

Sadly this is true. Conventional theory would state that when building a new system of course you would get the latest and greatest, but like codenam205 said, games have to build into the coding to optimize 6 cores, and it takes awhile before you see this effect. By the time they do it we will have 8 cores coming soon.....sigh.

Jac, i would say that your gpu and cpu are well matched and you are getting the performance that i would expect from your set-up. If you moved to a quad at 2.8/3Ghz i would expect to see the minimum fps come up a bit, eliminating those horrible dips. For now i would run on high rather than very high, as the difference to the eye will be negligable but you will get a much smoother experience.

Hope that helps. In the meantime, if i find any benchies for the 460, i'll post them here.

There will always be a bottleneck, but once you have all the eye-candy you need, anything above 60fps is simply a waste.

The point of having more than 60 fps though is that if that is your average and you want the game to look beautiful (running 1920 rez and graphics card settings to max) is that the frame rates drop during the hot and heavy action. I get about 100 fps running the game at 1680 by 1050 card settings to equal, but when 6 or 7 people pile up on the crash site and some idiot in the back is holding down fire on the Ltag and a couple guys launch an orbital strike your fps drop. This is where running higher than you need fps comes in. Ya they drop somewhat but not enough to cause me any lag or stutter.

Well .. It depends what kind of CPU also . For example , the Sandy Bridge i3 2100 (2 Cores /4 Threads) has an impressive performance in gaming even with a "low" frequency can beat a Phenom II X4 970 @3.5Ghz . But CPU's like Athlon X2 and i3 540 in most cases both have low performance. The performance in gaming no only depends on how fast is the CPU ( frequency) , the architecture matters. Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20

At moment , few games supports more than 2C but I think Quad-Cores is going be the new standard in gaming later. Dragon age is one good example about multi-core optimization http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,698761/Dragon-Age-Origins-CPU-benchmarks-75-percent-boost-for-quad-cores/Practice/

Even today, most games still only manage to use 2 threads at a time. Although, as others have said, the quad core adoption rate for games has been increasing, so it's becoming more and more useful to have a quad core in your system. Another reason to pick up a new quad core is for the more advanced architecture. When I went from a 3.2GHz Q6600 to a 2.8GHz i7 930, the performance difference on Red Faction: Guerrilla was like night and day, even though only 2 threads are used in that game. As for Crysis, I'm not entirely sure if upgrading your CPU will noticeably improve performance. Crysis 2 has a lot of post processing and lighting effects that are more handled by the GPU, NOT the CPU.

Core 2 Quad Q9300 @ 3.0ghz w/ a Radeon HD6850 = 45-55 FPS average. 1920/1080 rez.

I believe the 6850 is near equivalent to the GTX 460 (same price point, anyway), though I'm not an NVIDIA guy so maybe not.

cant just look at clocks/cores. its about architecture as well.

that being said, games are starting to really use multiple cores, so grabbing a strong quad (ie: 2500k 3.3ghz stock OC'ed to 4.4ghz, sandybridge being the best clock for clock processor too) will last you a long time.

I was in this situation like a week ago lol, there isn't much difference when I play Crysis 2, cause...it uses 2 cores does it not? But on Dragon age 2, my dual core was the bottleneck of my graphics card, I upgraded to a quad core and now I run at around 35-40 FPS running on very-high 1920x1080 (on a 460 gtx)
I'd only suggest switching to quad core if you're planning to use all 4 cores, if not, it'd be a waste imo. Most games still work best on dual core (:

Still best to get the best one you can afford though, I know this may come as a shock to a lot of you but pc's can be used for things other than video games O_o

Try video editing, talk about needing processor power those tools can work it harder than any video game I have seen. It can take a lot of power to use a really advanced video editing software.

My specs:
Q6600 @3.0Ghz
460 GTX SLI @ 800mhz core/2100mhz memory
4 Gb DDR2-800 RAM
Crysis 2, v1.4

Before I SLIed:
Avg 31-33 FPS @ Extreme, no v-sync, 1920x1080. No tweaking.

After I SLIed:
Avg 60 FPS @ Extreme, v-sync on, 1920x1080 with 16xAA and 16x anisotropic filtering forced in the control panel.

Unfortunately, due to the multi-GPU flicker problem that is plaguing Crysis 2, I can't provide accurate benchmarks with the GTX SLIed because I need to force v-sync to make the flicker bearable but hopefully my post helps a bit. Just from comparing our systems, you can see the major benefit to quad is being able to run the same frames as you but on extreme settings (although I'm not sure how much of the performance increase can be attributed to my GPU overclock).

What are your GPU clocks? Now I'm curious!

Basically what codename said. He knows his PC regardless of how much hypocripsy he has exposed throughout the forums.

I suggest you get a quad core right now. Or a six core....

Gaming is still the province of dual-core processors , the videocard is a much more important component.

@Jac

Your current CPU can't handle your graphic card because the clock speed is too slow. If you don't want to spend on a new CPU then your best option is to overclock that Core2Duo between 3.6 - 4.0 ghz (4.0ghz for best results). Firstly you need to buy Artic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro rev 2 which is the best for the 775 socket.

Some people already OC'd their Core2duos and the results are amazing:

Ed's SPEC - http://www.youtube.com/user/ed3452
E7500 @ 4.2GHz (AC Freezer 7)
4GB 800-DDR2 (@1066)
XFX 4870 1GB (900/1200) (AC Accelero TT Cooler)

Crysis 2 - 1920x1080 High - avg 60-70FPS



Ecko's SPEC - http://www.youtube.com/user/eckos20
E7500 3.5 OC'd
3GB
6950@6970

Crysis 2 Demo - Max settings - avg 50 fps (probably getting more)

Crysis 2 - Max settings 1920x1080P - avg 60 fps (V-Sync)

Crysis - Max settings - avg 60 fps (V-Sync)

Their spec's will probably achieve high fps on future games like BF3.

When you have an e6600 dual core processor like me(OC to 3.2)...you will see definite bottle-necking for this game.
I play on the lowest settings getting 20-30 fps at best, while the cpu is at a constant 100% load.
Although I get much higher in single player on max, go figure lol.

I'm using a Q8200 @ 2,33 GHz and a GTX460 768mb. (resolution 1680x1050)

I run the game with very high and autoexec.cfg with about 60fps. Only in levels with a lot of water, the fps gow on to 40-50.

So my 460 is weaker than yours, but I have more fps? Maybe beacuse fo the RAM?

If I don't forget it, I'll post my autoexec so you can see, what I changed.

2 cores cannot work on a single thread. That's why sometimes dual core can be faster