Quote:
Originally Posted by Lasereth
Dual core is best for gaming in my opinion unless you plan on overclocking (which is not a good idea for someone building their first PC). Quadcores typically have lower clock speeds but 4 cores, and many games only use 2 cores or even 1, so dual cores with their higher clock speeds are better bang for your buck. AMD and Intel both have great CPUs for the price. It depends on how much you want to spend. AMD can't compete with the high-end Intel CPUs but at the low to medium range they do fine. If you want upgradeability I would go with LGA 775.
|
When do you think this will change? Quad-core gaming has been born. For example,
Valve retooled their Source engine specifically to accommodate four cores.
Left 4 Dead was their first full game release coded for quad-core optimal performance. I recently bought a machine on sale (for around $900) and it was loaded with a Q6600 and a GeForce 8800GT. That seems accessible in price to me (this being in Canada). It's 2.4Ghz per core, which certainly is lower than a duo core around 3Ghz each, but what is the real difference when you consider
what's coming down the road? I suppose it depends on how long you plan on using the CPU for before upgrading. I imagine it will be only a matter of time before most major games are designed around four cores, with duo-core compatibility. Steam did a survey recently and found that while 50% of users are running duo core, 1 out of every 10 are running quad core already. AMD just released a new and powerful chip that they claim has more bang for the buck than a comparable Intel chip:
AMD's 45nm Phenoms ride 'Dragon' ? The Register.
It might be too soon for quad core for biznatch, sure, but do you think he should rule it out completely at this time?