EA and quad cores

[id10x]

EA trying to sell quad cores for intel? all new titles depending on cpu not gpu
while games should depend more on gpu

starting from battlefield games to Bulletstorm and look at this :

Dragon Age 2 recommended :

CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4 GHz Processor or equivalent / AMD Phenom II X3 Triple core 2.8 GHz or equivalent

VGA: ATI 3850 512 MB or greater / NVIDIA 8800GTS 512 MB or greater

lol a 8800gts? am below sys requirements with an HD 6870 and a top notch
c2d at 4 ghz, i wont be shy to prove to EA that games will deppend
on an up to date gpu at the end more than a 2.4 quad cpu , i never go below 100 fps in any of their
quad cores games .

dragon age 2 dx11 high settings 110 fps

[David M]

Originally Posted by id10x EA trying to sell quad cores for intel? all new titles depending on cpu not gpu

Do you have a link to this?

[id10x]

no but review all other games on the market, 2 cores are still more than enough to run games

[David M]

Most people know that here. Just wondering where you saw that Intel was pushing this idea.

[id10x]

Originally Posted by David M Most people know that here. Just wondering where you saw that Intel was pushing this idea.

i saw it in my head , am an accountant ,

[birddog_61]

Its not that a quad core is required, its that those games can actually use 4 cores instead of just 2. There are quite a few games out there now that will use 3-4 cores, and the list grows every day. If you notice its dragon age II recommended not dragon age II minimum system requirements.

[id10x]

i dont care if they even ask for 12 cores , but i was just intimidating EA,coz
in games you dont really need to go all the way up with cpu then recommended
a 5 yo 512 mb gpu as recommended. that ati 3850 wont even run the game at 10 fps even with an i7 extreme .

[id10x]

this may clear what i wanted to say better , this is totally confusing
back at 2009"s rule of the thumb, it was that games depend on the vga
with a good dual cpu

Originally Posted by glc The video card is far more important than the CPU speed for most games.

well when we see a new game asking for recommended gpu as low as
8800gtx but with a minimum of a quad core even if its a 2.4 GHz
this makes things different for those who invested in a top notch dual core
depending on upgrading the vga when its needed . i never planned to keep
my pc more than 5 years but i feel bad having to drop back on the cpu
instead of the gpu . just because its a dual core . which was much more
expensive than the recommended 2.4 quad 2 core .

here i am much more stronger in gpu but weaker in cpu were i shouldnt
be . because my cpu was the power base in my system .


ok i said that before . lets see a much newer game correcting things :

Batman: Arkham City system requirements - System Requirements

Batman: Arkham City

Recommended System Requirements:

CPU: Dual core CPU 2.5 GHz

VGA: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 or ATI Radeon HD 6850 with 768MB+ (DX 11 compatible)



clear and direct . cpu doing its job and gpu goes up the rest of the way
why are they making it the other way around in the other game ?
a quad core no matter haw strong it is then for my surprise going
with gpu as low as a antiquated 8800 its seems if cpus are running the graphics these days

[David M]

Many software developers are getting honest and now have Minimum and Recommended hardware standards. I just bought some navigation software which listed both. The Minimums of course are unrealistic.

[rwest]

Yep, I've learned that iIf you're buying software off the minimum requirements you're buying frustration.

I've bought too many games based off what the manufacturer says you need to play it and I've never been satisfied with playability. You don't always need the reccomended req but the min req is almost always too low.

[id10x]

its not about that . its just that games shifted to use 4 cores sooner than i expected ,
i made my pc at 2009 assuming i will lasted 4 years but with a gpu upgrade after
2 years . and that is what i did . and as you see they cant beat my system
still if it wasnt for that quad core thing . i mean my cpu is running at 4ghz .
thing is if i am to upgrade again it will be stupid to buy a good cpu now on this
4 years system . and if it wasnt that quad core thing i wouldnt have needed upgrade
soon anyway

[glc]

You do not *NEED* a quad core to play your games. There's not a game out yet that REQUIRES one.

HOWEVER - like we have told you before, if you always want to have the BEST gaming machine, you will be doing upgrades every 6 months!

[id10x]

Originally Posted by glc You do not *NEED* a quad core to play your games.

this i know . because am playing all games on good frame rate . even bf3 .

i know this sound silly but its just that i get a bad feeling at system requirements lab when it says am below recommended only because i dont
have a quad even if its an old one . while my other hardware are still
at a good level above the recommended . its ok i dont mean to bother
i know my self from other forums that i like to talk a lot .

Originally Posted by glc if you always want to have the BEST gaming machine, you will be doing upgrades every 6 months!

no i dont want that . but i always will need a hardcore time proof gaming machine .
all this talk about my current system is not important . i can boost it with
a new generation cpu but i dont want that . am selling my house and moving
to another . ill have lots of money going around selling and buying i will
spear a good money for my next system . but that is another story because
there is some things that i dont see a point in changing like :

1_ monitor
2_power supply
3_case
4_dvd driver

is there any logical reason to upgrade them ?

so i will need a

1_ a mother board that is worthy to be a successor to the p5q pro (asus)
2_ 12 gb ram (corsair)
3_ top notch Intel quad cpu (or 6 cores even if it was available by that time)
4_ one high end video card . (amd)

what do you guys think ? did i miss something ?

[Extremerc12]

If you were to upgrade your system, as you suggested, your psu, case and dvd drive would probably all be perfectly fine. Depending on the monitor, you could make the argument for replacing it with one with a higher resolution especially if you are going to put a top tier GPU in. Your largest upgrade would probably be a SSD.

In a new system you would rock 16gb of ram and would run an X79 chipset or higher to take advantage of quad channel memory. As far as GPU's go, you would have to see how the new 7xxx and 6xx series card perform, but I would be inclined to believe you would want to go NVidia. This would largely be due to game creators being biased towards NVidia chipsets.

Like everything else, dual cores are being phased out in favor of quad cores. It's just the evolutionary basis that is technology. Today a quad core is king, tomorrow a 6 core is king.

[David M]

Hardware is way ahead of gaming software at this time. I wouldn't worry about having the fastest hardware out there for playing games at decent speeds. All you end up doing is paying an unnecessary premium for the newest hardware....unless you are a hardcore gamer with a big budget that is willing to pay the price.

GLC is right....you can play any game with a single core if you want. It may not be optimal, but the game will still play.