General question about parts and gaming...

legendaryBacon · 03-11-2008, 11:23 PM

I decided to post this here rather than on one of the technical support subforums because I feel it doesn't warrant technical support.

My question stems from some kind of confusion I am experiencing. I have seen people express their opinions about processors and graphics cards that conflict with what I have experienced. I've seen people state that Core 2 Duo CPU's rated at 1.8ghz or 1.66ghz were not suitable for heavy gaming. Furthermore cards which meet specifications such as 256MB of Video RAM or greater, GDDR2 and a 128-bit interface were also not suitable for heavy gaming.

I find this highly confusing. I cannot understand how parts like those could not be suitable for heavy gaming. Reading up on the megahertz myth and then supplying knowledge on my current system I find it hard to believe those kind of parts are not suitable for heavy gaming. Maybe the confusion stems because the definition of "heavy" gaming varies widely. Maybe it stems from certain resolutions, settings (AA, AF) or frames someone considers "good enough" for "heavy" gaming. Come to think of it, I don't know what "heavy" gaming is supposed to mean.

What it all boils down to is, I don't understand how a Core 2 Duo 1.8ghz or greater is not good for "heavy" gaming when a Pentium 4 2.4ghz with a 512kb L2 cache yields decent frames on medium to high on Call of Duty 4 (using the same GPU). Just how large is the disparity between a Core 2 Duo at 1.8ghz and a Pentium 4 at 2.4ghz taking into account the megahertz myth? With the same GPU, shouldn't the Core 2 Duo allow the user to play Call of Duty 4 at much higher settings considering the processor appears to be the biggest bottleneck for Call of Duty 4 using a Pentium 4 2.4ghz? Shouldn't the Core 2 Duo absolutely demolish the Pentium 4? Maybe I have the incorrect notion that there isn't much of a disparity between the two. Is the megahertz myth correct in that a Core 2 Duo converts to a much higher gigahertz when comparing it to a Pentium 4 even on a single core?

The main reason I post this is to clear up this confusion and possibly learn a new thing or two. If there is any mistake in what I am asking, I ask that you please correct me.

**Aus_Karlos** · 03-12-2008, 08:12 AM

Most games do not utilize dual cores as of yet. But they do use both cores. The game basically fills up one core to 100% then may choose to use the other core instead of equally spreading the job between them. This is why you may get slowdowns in some games.
COD4 and Crysis are the only games i know of that completely uses both cores.
But a Core2 Duo 1.8ghz out does a P4 2.6ghz in a benchmark test.

Now a Video card with 256mb with a interface of 128-bit is considered on the slow side these days and trying to run a high-end game will struggle.
Looking for a card with a 512mb and a 256-bit interface is the way to go.
The current fastest is the 8800GTX ultra with its massive 768mb and a interface of 384-bit

03-11-2008, 11:23 PM	#1 (permalink)
legendaryBacon Registered User Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 5 OS: Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2	General question about parts and gaming... I decided to post this here rather than on one of the technical support subforums because I feel it doesn't warrant technical support. My question stems from some kind of confusion I am experiencing. I have seen people express their opinions about processors and graphics cards that conflict with what I have experienced. I've seen people state that Core 2 Duo CPU's rated at 1.8ghz or 1.66ghz were not suitable for heavy gaming. Furthermore cards which meet specifications such as 256MB of Video RAM or greater, GDDR2 and a 128-bit interface were also not suitable for heavy gaming. I find this highly confusing. I cannot understand how parts like those could not be suitable for heavy gaming. Reading up on the megahertz myth and then supplying knowledge on my current system I find it hard to believe those kind of parts are not suitable for heavy gaming. Maybe the confusion stems because the definition of "heavy" gaming varies widely. Maybe it stems from certain resolutions, settings (AA, AF) or frames someone considers "good enough" for "heavy" gaming. Come to think of it, I don't know what "heavy" gaming is supposed to mean. What it all boils down to is, I don't understand how a Core 2 Duo 1.8ghz or greater is not good for "heavy" gaming when a Pentium 4 2.4ghz with a 512kb L2 cache yields decent frames on medium to high on Call of Duty 4 (using the same GPU). Just how large is the disparity between a Core 2 Duo at 1.8ghz and a Pentium 4 at 2.4ghz taking into account the megahertz myth? With the same GPU, shouldn't the Core 2 Duo allow the user to play Call of Duty 4 at much higher settings considering the processor appears to be the biggest bottleneck for Call of Duty 4 using a Pentium 4 2.4ghz? Shouldn't the Core 2 Duo absolutely demolish the Pentium 4? Maybe I have the incorrect notion that there isn't much of a disparity between the two. Is the megahertz myth correct in that a Core 2 Duo converts to a much higher gigahertz when comparing it to a Pentium 4 even on a single core? The main reason I post this is to clear up this confusion and possibly learn a new thing or two. If there is any mistake in what I am asking, I ask that you please correct me.

03-12-2008, 08:12 AM	#2 (permalink)
Aus_Karlos Moderator, Games Team Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Western Australia Posts: 3,461 OS: Vista Ultimate x64, Windows XP 32-bit/64-bit, Ubuntu x64, Windows 7 x64 Beta My System Blog Entries: 2	Re: General question about parts and gaming... Most games do not utilize dual cores as of yet. But they do use both cores. The game basically fills up one core to 100% then may choose to use the other core instead of equally spreading the job between them. This is why you may get slowdowns in some games. COD4 and Crysis are the only games i know of that completely uses both cores. But a Core2 Duo 1.8ghz out does a P4 2.6ghz in a benchmark test. Now a Video card with 256mb with a interface of 128-bit is considered on the slow side these days and trying to run a high-end game will struggle. Looking for a card with a 512mb and a 256-bit interface is the way to go. The current fastest is the 8800GTX ultra with its massive 768mb and a interface of 384-bit __________________ MemTest86 / Nvidia Drivers / ATI Drivers / DirectX 9.0c / Sys Requirements / Everest Folding@Home