Games that gained benefit from 6 cores cpus

Since March 2010 (Intel Core i7-980X) or June 2010 (AMD Phenom II X6 1055T and 1090T) respectively

[sak500]

Almost to NONE take advantage of dual core or quad core let alone 6 core.

[chak_]

looool

Seriously, just stop commenting, that looks stupîd.

[Syaz1]

how did this idiot gain so many bubbles anyway? pity vote?

[BLACKBOIJONES]

The give them selfs bubbles with there multiple accounts.

[sak500]

LOL @ idiots above.

I have a core i5 760 quad core 2.8Ghz @ 3.8Ghz, 2x 2GB DDR3 1600mhz, 5870 1GD5 and Asus MS236h 23" 1080P monitor. The games like BF2 run 100+ fps at max settings yet some games like crysis bring it down to crawl due to GPU limitations, the core's can't do $hit if the GPU is the bottle neck.

Keep being blind ..

[bumnut]

If Crysis slows to a crawl with that spec, there is something wrong with your rig or you have max AA on.

Reduce the AA and leave everything else on max and it will run great.

[ATiElite]

your correct and i too have laughed at the idiots above.

1. this article is crap and shows no benefits of a 6 core cpu vs. 4 core in gaming ALONE!
2. this article provides no charts and no table of results
3. how did they test. I see no testing criteria
4. these idiots above (most using Pentium III Pc's) just blindly believe whatever crap they read without proof
5. if you scroll down 5 clicks I've provided links and information to back up what SAK500 and I have stated.

I'm a PC Enthusiast and I know what I'm talking about.

[bumnut]

@sak500

have you quantum leaped here from 2004 ?

Lots of games run better on multi cores

[sak500]

Are you sure these so called games are using 6 cores? Why we still depend so much on GPUs then? You run a game on 12 cpu server with a 2 generation old ati or nv card and see which game can run better.

[bumnut]

Your comment said game barely even use 2 cores.

I agree 6 are not needed but most games won't even run on a single core

[ATiElite]

"Games that gained benefit from 6 cores cpus" Almost NONE and sak500 is correct which is why he has more bubbles then you guys do and i will be more than happy to prove him right and provide links.

The AMD x4 975 plays games faster than the AMD x6 1100t. The intel 4 core i7 2500k or 2600k play games faster than a $1000 6 core Core i7 980 990.

to see this magical difference you have to run the game at a very low resolution with low graphics settings therefore the CPU is doing all the work. Once you pump up the resolution and graphics the GPU is doing all the work and all CPU's pretty much perform the same across the board with only a 3 to 5 FPS difference.

Any 3.0 ghz dual core CPU can run all games today. just as of last year Pc games started using multi-treading a lot better along with 4 core optimization. as far as 6 core CPU's very few games even optimize to 4 with only a handful optimizing to 6. Sure you have a handful that will use all 6 cores but in most cases it's slower than using a 4 core CPu.

remember PC do more than just play games. I have a dual core AMD that I can play games, browse the net, video chat at the same time across 3 monitors. a 6 core would just allow for more multi-tasking and not better game performance as the GPU does all the work.

http://www.hardwarecanucks....

[sak500]

@ATiElite

Good one bro. +bubbs. We hardly see any sane, informative people here on N4G. 90% are blind followers of one system/console or another. I'll add you as a friend so we can exchange our pc stories :)

[JsonHenry]

Where on the linked site can you click to see what 24 games they tested?

[hassi94]

Worst article ever. It doesn't even back up its claims with any evidence neither does it tell you which games were tested. Just a generic 'great number of games' utilise 6-cores, so this article gives is NO actual information whatsoever. Useless.

[esemce]

Sadly most games still dont even use all 4 cores on my i7920.