 |
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||
Today we are taking almost half a dozen games to see how they perform when using one, two and four cores. For this test we will be using not just an Intel Core i7 processor, but also the Core i5, Core 2 Quad and AMD Phenom II X4 processors, which will give us a good idea of just how core dependent each series is in order to deliver maximum performance...
Surprisingly we still get asked quite often from gamers which kind of processor they should purchase for their next upgrade. As a general question there is nothing surprising about this and as a hardware site we are always trying to help gamers and PC users with buying decisions. However we are more surprised by the fact that many are still concerned that now might not be the best time to upgrade to a quad-core processor or greater.
 Of course the cause for concern comes down to price for many and when looking at the Intel lineup for example, their cheapest current generation quad-core processor is the Core i5 750. While many including myself view this processor as a bargain at $200 US, that is still quite a bit of money, especially when the dual-core equivalent can be had for almost half that price. Making the transition to a quad-core configuration a little more realistic is AMD with their current range of Phenom II X4 and Athlon II X4 processors, some of which cost less than $100 US, while the most expensive is priced at just $180 US. These processors offer gamers a tremendous amount of value and are the best option for those on a tight budget. Those not as restricted by their budget will no doubt be interested in a Core i7 quad-core processor, and with the cheapest model priced at around $300 US, they are intended for power users that are not going to question how many cores today’s games need. In the past we have often tested new and exciting games using a range of graphics cards to try and give gamers an idea of what, if any, upgrades they might need to make to their current gaming system in order to enjoy that particular title in all of its glory. Such articles also often include processor scaling results that feature a number of different processors. Furthermore, we would also disable cores on the more powerful processors, such as the Core i7, to see what kind of impact this had on performance. Based on our experience, powerful processors such as the Core i7 cannot always be used to measure dual-core performance by disabling two cores. This is because they will still closely match cheaper quad-core processors in terms of performance and as a result are considerably more powerful than any dual-core processor. Therefore today we hope to take a more accurate look at the impact extra cores are having on games. While we are sampling just short of a dozen games, we feel the lineup should give you a good idea of what can be expected from most games. |
|||||
|
|
Chootia |
Posted on: 07/21/2010 10:06 PM
Thanks. I upgraded to the Core i5 750 for Bad Company 2 with a Radeon HD 5850 and could not be happier. My old Core 2 Duo system with the Radeon HD 4870 was choppy as hell in this game. Seems like it was more the CPU! |
|
PFULMTL |
Posted on: 07/22/2010 01:37 AM
Aww, I wanted to see my CPU in there, AMD AthlonII X4 620 compared to PhenomII X4, since there is only one AMD on the list here. Was pretty surprised on the benchies comparing the i7 and i5. I thought the i7 would have much more FPS. |
|
ProX |
Posted on: 07/22/2010 03:26 AM
@ PFULMTL - with HyperThreading disabled the Core i7 920 and Core i5 750 are the same processor really  If you want to know how the Athlon and Phenom compare just ready a CPU review. |
|
Ash |
Posted on: 07/22/2010 05:32 AM
@ ProX - not quite: different turbo speeds, different memory bandwidth, different PCIe lanes potential. |
|
archange Posts: 9 Joined: 2010-07-22 |
Posted on: 07/22/2010 07:05 AM
@ Ash: all of which prove to have little effect in real-life gaming and in the context of this testing. So I agree with ProX. @ Steve Walton: 1. Why on Earth would you choose to disable HT on the i7?! 2. I agree, disabling cores on the quads still yields better performance than using "real" dual cores; I suspect cache size has quite an impact here. I would have liked to see some real dual core data, especially when nobody in their right mind would buy and then disable cores on purpose. 3. I found the picture in the article title misleading: The two Zalman coolers led me to believe that you were going to test with CPU cores in excess of 8. In another context, great job Steve; I like coming back to Legion. It allows me to get a "down to Earth" feeling again. |
|
Steve Posts: 80 Joined: 2010-02-08 |
Posted on: 07/22/2010 07:19 AM
Thanks for the feedback guys. @ archange: The reason HT was disabled was so that we could see the impact of having just 1,2 and 4 cores. With HT we would be showing the impact of 2, 4, 8 threads and that is not what we were trying to do. As for real dual-core performance that was shown in the article. A Core 2 Quad processor is two Core 2 Duo's stuck together. Furthermore the Phenom II X4 and Phenom II X2 are also the same processor so again you are seeing a real dual-core here. Anyway thank you for the feedback. |
|
pcgamer |
Posted on: 07/22/2010 08:50 PM
good article, i'm glad i've bought q6600 3 years ago (costed only 25% over e6600) despite almost everyone in that time wrote in benchmarks that it's better to buy dualcore, but i knew better, now i dont have to change my cpu in next 2-3 years, only changed gpu, now i'm laughing at my friends that argued about my bad decision, yes - i'm cruel XD, just checked some benchmarks at pcgameshardware, all of those games gets more fps when going 2to4cores and most of them plays better with q6600@2.4ghz than e8400@3.0ghz (and more cache): Dirt 2, Dragon Age Origins, Left 4 Dead 1&2, GTA4, Anno 1404, Ghostbusters, ArmA 2, Prototype and probably some more... |
|
archange Posts: 9 Joined: 2010-07-22 |
Posted on: 07/23/2010 05:31 AM
@ Steve: I see your reasoning, but I still would have liked to see regular i7 benchmark results next to the other graphs - given that I own a 920. With that said, I suppose the results can't be more than a few percent off in either direction. And yes, all we want is to make your life more complicated  Looking forward to the next review. |
|
Offordef |
Posted on: 07/23/2010 03:28 PM
Hi Steve, Good article as we become to expect from you,you must be busy swapping hardware. It would have been interesting to see the resulst with SLI/Crossfire to remove the GPU bottleneck however cannot have it all (and I cannot afford it anyway) Guess that Quad Cores will be sufficent until the new console generation arrives. |
|
Razor |
Posted on: 07/23/2010 08:23 PM
Hey nice article. That was a very interesting read. Anyone building a new PC for gaming should get a quad-core anyway but of course not everyone does |
|
Dakaan |
Posted on: 07/25/2010 06:47 PM
Hey. I did my own testing (work in a hardware store ;-) before building my new machine. And came to the same conclusion you did. the i5 750 and even the i7 930 performs basically equal in a 4core vs 4core situation. I wound up buying the i5 platform after i found out that gaming performance on the i7 actually decreased after activating hyperthreading. Read up and the issue seems to be that cache problems slow the i7 down a little with HT enabled. HT only seems to be a speed benenit when you are truly using 6 or more threads heavily. |
|
Effran |
Posted on: 07/27/2010 02:33 PM
Very nice work there. My next upgrade will be to a quad-core for sure! |
|
Lex Luger |
Posted on: 08/02/2010 05:15 PM
Great article, lots of good games choices for sure, but still, I would of loved to see more quad core game engines tested. -Grand Theft Auto 4 -Empire or Napoleon Total War -Assassins Creed 2 -The Last Remnant, (uses more cpu than any other UE 3 game) -Resident Evil 5 -Mlb or NBA 2k9 or 10 (jaw dropping graphics) -ARMA II (extreme graphics) -Starcraft 2 Elder Scrolls 4 or Fallout 3 (oblivion was first quad core game) |
|
ProX |
Posted on: 08/03/2010 05:00 AM
Strange picks there Lex Luger. StarCraft II for example is hopeless, uses just 2 cores. NBA 2k9 or 10 use only two cores and look very average in my opinion. Resident Evil 5 is old but it does use more cores but a single core can play it fine. The rest are okay but I think we got the idea. |
|
PCMechanik |
Posted on: 08/11/2010 03:05 AM
All this info is great, but with a Dual Core I 5 670, with hyper-threading, isn't it just as good as a quad core? Has anyone tested an I 5 670 against an I 5 750? |
|
ProX |
Posted on: 08/11/2010 12:58 PM
@ PCMechanik - really not sure what that has to do with anything? At least to do with an article that explored the impact 1,2 and 4 cores had on performance. If you want to count the Core i5 670 as a quad core be my guest. That said HT is not nearly efficient as dedicated cores, so the Core i5 750 will be faster in games that utilize all four cores. You also have to question who would spend $300 US on a dual-core processor with Hyper-Threading? Any gamer that does when the Core i5 750 costs $200 US probably needs to have their marbles checked. The Core i5 670 also has half the L3 cache of the Core i5 750, OUCH!!! |
|
travbrad |
Posted on: 11/01/2010 04:58 AM
I've been looking all over for something like this. It's greatly appreciated. I think my E8400 will last me a bit longer with some OCing  |
|
Cheewie |
Posted on: 12/24/2010 04:57 AM
Thanks! Great test |
|
DAG |
Posted on: 08/31/2012 03:52 PM
This is a great article regarding an interesting point - do cores matter and how much. However, I am perhaps more interested in the real world decision - what is the gain based on cpu variants, but considering everything that is included in that purchase (e.g. the extra cores + hypertheading, etc.) Moreover, if the extra bells and whistles of a i7 are disabled, it really doesn't help make a decision on which cpu I should buy. While this comment is very late, perhaps the new articles will also include a comparison of level playing field of processors only, AND normal operating experience with the new cpus. Just a thought. |