Is a Quad Core still enough to warrant a GPU-only update?

[bassport]

Hi all,

I'm running a Quad Core 2.x GHz with 4 GB RAM and a 9800GTX which is alright, but I can't run most games on high settings anymore and I'd like to try Metro, Bioshock 2 and a few others coming out soon (Natural Selection 2).

Will I be awed by the increase in speed if I buy a GTX-460 (maaaybe a GTX-470, I dunno) only?

Or is a Quad Core history by now?

 

[Kaptain H]

Lol, I don't even think my computer at work has quad-core. This makes me feel terrible.

 

[giant384]

Only game in that list that will struggle is Metro...the others will run flawlessly.

 

[VirusType2]

What do you mean is quad core history? It's the best thing going. >4 cores is not going to be useful for gaming at all. Well, truthfully, you could pay like $1000 for a CPU for a few more FPS (~3-6 more FPS), but the benefit wouldn't be from having more cores, it would be because it is a faster CPU.

Maybe try overclocking. But, obviously, the weak point is your video card.

A GTX 460 is much better than a 9800GTX, if that's any help.

 

[Warped]

wouldn't it be cheaper to do that onlive thing or whatever they call it and just stream the games??

 

[Acepilotf14]

wouldn't it be cheaper to do that onlive thing or whatever they call it and just stream the games??

Didn't you even read the onlive thread?

Onlive is a sack of shit.

 

[Quixoticism]

You should be okay with your current CPU. Like VT said you could benefit from overclocking if you think your chip can handle it.
A 460 would give you a nice performance upgrade.

 

[bassport]

Alright, thanks. The reason I asked is that I'm running one of those Core2 Quads, not the i7 ones... The rig is about 3 years old so I thought I was a bit outdated for a new video card. And I must admit I have absolutely no idea what the difference between a Core2 Quad and an i7 Quad Core CPU is (apart from the RAM bus speed which I don't care about because I can live with that).

Does that change anything?

 

[VirusType2]

I mean, if you want to build a whole new computer every time a new socket comes out, yes. Otherwise, no.

I was limping through using a CeleronD (less than a P4) all the way up until December 2009.

 

[Warbie]

It would be worth looking at a new cpu if you can find a bargain. 4 cores are plenty, but yours are running at ~ 2ghz and that will hold you back in various games. Or overclock. I'm using 2 cores running at 4ghz and the difference in gaming between stock and overclocked speeds is marked. While games are starting to use more than 2 cores, most don't, and in these cases clock speed is king.

 

[bassport]

So I'm torn between the Point of View GTX-470 (which is a bit too expensive) and the EVGA GTX-465.

If I go for the 470 will this future-proof my PC for the next 3-4 years (I may have to upgrade my CPU / mainboard, but that would be another story)?

If I buy the 465 will I have to buy another card in 1 or 2 years?

I can shell out around 200-400$ per 2 years for my PC and it would be time again for an upgrade round.

 

[huntingbear]

if money is a problem why are you going nvidia?

 

[Ren.182]

I have Core2Duo Q6600 (Running at stock speeds which I think is 2.4GHz) and upgraded to an ATI Radeon HD 5850 from a Nvidia 8800GTX and the performance increase was great!

My CPU hasn't seemed to stop me from playing every game I play on high settings. Metro played very smoothly for me. I'd say go for the upgraded graphics card

 

[Quixoticism]

From a system balance standpoint I'd just stick with a 460. You would be sure to see improvements from something more expensive but you'll start to become more CPU bound with stuff like a 470 or better.

 

[VirusType2]

460 is better than the 465, bassport. The benchmarks are about equal, but the 460 runs at like half the temperature and power. 460 is the one of the top 5 best deals in gaming cards right now. The 5850 should be the price/performance king, but low supply has kept its price well above retail.

In fact, if you really want the price performance, get the 'meager' 768 MB version GTX 460. Not that I would. I would get the 1GB, but instead I'm waiting to see what card they launch next; I have a feeling it will be just what I'm looking for ($400 - $450)

 

[Vegeta897]

>2 cores is not going to be useful for gaming at all.

Fixed.

 

[VirusType2]

Yeah, I sort of misspoke. It does depend on the game. 2 cores and 4 cores is both good for gaming. What I meant that was >4 is pretty much useless. Some games can even use HT.

 

[Vegeta897]

There are like, no games that take advantage of a 4 core CPU.

It's not easy to design a game that does. Just because you see all 4 cores in use in the game doesn't mean it's actually taking advantage of the potential of 4 cores.

 

[VirusType2]

The list of games that support quad core is smaller than I expected:

GTA IV, BF:BC2, MS Flight Sim X are some games off the top of my head that can support quad cores, and i would expect more PC games that utilize DX10/11 to get more threaded due to Windows 7 new driver design that allows for multiple threads

Crysis can use 4 cores, also CryEngine 3 will be able to use up to 8 cores: http://www.neoseeker.com/news/14688-cryengine-3-can-use-up-to-8-cpu-cores/


Currently looking through this thread: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1515118

So I did some testing and have decided to list games that use multithreading. As you can see, quite a few new games do. Not all of them well. Mind you.

Dragon Age Origins

It's been a while, but i believe i noticed this game used hyper-threading. Which makes it the only game to use this feature besides BC2. This game uses 1-2-3-4 cores evenly, and well, incrementally increasing fps and general smoothness per core, and hyper-threading, while not aiding the fps by much, seems to increase the general stability and consistency of the framerate. This is one well made game.

Mafia 2 (demo)

Absolutely NAILS, multithreading.

Grand Theft Auto 4

Horrible without 4 cores on any setting that goes beyond the console versions.

The Saboteur

This game almost NEEDS 4 cores.

 

[Vegeta897]

Like I said, just because they say the games can 'support' quad core, doesn't really mean it's taking advantage of them. I especially doubt GTAIV, it was a terrible port to begin with. Seeing all 4 cores being in use in your task manager does not mean they're really being used efficiently to give higher performance.

One example of wrong metrics is a concurrency level. Concurrency level tells us how much are the additional cores used. This factor is very easy to measure (you can do it in default system task manager), and that is probably why many hard core end users and reviewers are interested about it. Often you can see phrases like "Game XXXX is using quad cores very well, because when you watch CPU usage in task manager, you see all cores are running 100 %". It is very easy to create a trivial program which will make "full use of all cores" - all you need to do it to spawn a few threads and make them spin in an infinite loop. Concurrency is not a goal, only a mean. It is required, but not sufficient. Real life scenarios are more intricated then idle loops, but the principle is the same: using CPU does not mean you get any benefit from using it. In many cases the overhead of going "threaded" is so high that even when two cores are running 100 %, the performance improvement is very small, say about 20 % from single core, and the difference between quad and dual is even smaller.

 

[VirusType2]

Like I said, just because they say the games can 'support' quad core, doesn't really mean it's taking advantage of them. I especially doubt GTAIV, it was a terrible port to begin with. Seeing all 4 cores being in use in your task manager does not mean they're really being used efficiently to give higher performance.

I understand. Here's some that use it well.

Mafia 2 (demo)

Absolutely NAILS, multithreading.

Grand Theft Auto 4

Horrible without 4 cores on any setting that goes beyond the console versions.

The Saboteur

This game almost NEEDS 4 cores.

You can also force a game to use certain cores. 2, for example - which is great with the newer intel chips with Turbo, since they will overclock when not using all cores.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

Hi all,

I'm running a Quad Core 2.x GHz with 4 GB RAM and a 9800GTX which is alright, but I can't run most games on high settings anymore and I'd like to try Metro, Bioshock 2 and a few others coming out soon (Natural Selection 2).

Will I be awed by the increase in speed if I buy a GTX-460 (maaaybe a GTX-470, I dunno) only?

Or is a Quad Core history by now?

I have a GTX-470 coming tomorrow and you have similar specs to me even down to the Quad Core (I'm assuming it is Intel). I'll let you know how things pan out

 

[bassport]

I have a GTX-470 coming tomorrow and you have similar specs to me even down to the Quad Core (I'm assuming it is Intel). I'll let you know how things pan out

Thanks, but: I bought a EVGA GTX-465 on impulse (only around 270 CHF that's around the same in dollars) which was pretty cheap and I've been gaming on max settings ever since (older games though: Crysis, Stalker Prypiat, Modern Warfare etc.

I have to say I'm very impressed by the gain in power I got from this!

I have another problem (longer than I've had the video card): http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?p=3202338

 

[Sedako]

You could always do what I did and buy a PNY GTX 465 from newegg and flash unlock it to a GTX 470. Best price/performance possible atm. It does, however, require a bit of technical know-how to pull off though.

 

[bassport]

You could always do what I did and buy a PNY GTX 465 from newegg and flash unlock it to a GTX 470. Best price/performance possible atm. It does, however, require a bit of technical know-how to pull off though.

I've read about that. But I'm not quite sure I want to risk that. The card is working mighty fine atm. Maybe when I get Metro 2033 I'll think about it again.