PC Gamers: Question about dual core processors

[Don Israel]

Since my question apparently is too specific for google, does anybody know if a dual core 2 ghz processor can be able to play a game that asks for 3.2 ghz (single core) as a minimum requirement?


Much appreciated

 

[backbreaker]

you might ahve to do a little overlcocking but its shouldn't be a problem. as long as you have th FSB to get the info from the 2 processors to the rest of the pc it's the same thing

 

[ChalengeGuyFan]

No it's not.
Unless it wasn't written using threads, a program will use only one processor.

So if one asks for a single core @ 3.2GHz, then you may have a Quad and that program will still use only one core.

But keep in mind that current processors are far more efficient than the old ones, so a 2Ghz of today may be the 2.5-3Ghz of 5 years ago.

 

[Bladerunner]

Knowing what the game is would actually help.

 

[backbreaker]

No it's not.
Unless it wasn't written using threads, a program will use only one processor.

So if one asks for a single core @ 3.2GHz, then you may have a Quad and that program will still use only one core.

But keep in mind that current processors are far more efficient than the old ones, so a 2Ghz of today may be the 2.5-3Ghz of 5 years ago.

lol, so you are basically saying no then agreeing with me lol.

I game pretty hard and I cannot think of one game that would not work with the right setup using 2GHz processors, assuming they are newer and assuming that the rest of his system is bad ass.

If he is talking about Old dual p4 processors trying to play the new mass effect 2 game yeah you will probably have issues.

And yes it would help to know your entire pc setup and the actual game.

I have a system that is 2 years old and there is not a game out that I can't play flawlessly and I also have a dual setup as well. And I would be more concerned about the motherboard than the cpu. a cheap motherboard will make a bad ass cpu look like **** and visa versa.

 

[mrRuckus]

The efficiency hasn't improved that much in 5 years.

Clock speed is still the number 1 concern.

More cores is secondary to clock speed. More than 2 cores aren't taken advantage of often at all.

I still use my dual core intel 6300 overclocked to like 2.1ghz from a few years ago (2006? 2007?), and it runs everything at an okay resolution. Mostly the graphics is the real bottleneck in games. Most benchmarks you see of CPUs kicking another's ass is with all the graphics options turned off. Once you turn on the options most people are definitely going to want on at the very least, things level out a whole lot more because the graphics card becomes the bottleneck.

I'm thinking of upgrading, but really, there's not that much reason to yet. You don't get every single bell and whistle with everything cranked up, but i don't even notice it unless you're talking about some brand new hardcore FPS game and you can't crank the draw distance all the way up in a wide open area, and even that usually doesn't matter too much.

It's never even occurred to me anymore than games have system requirements. Everything just runs. I've run mass effect 2, bioshock 2, dragon age, and newish games like those just fine. I played through Psychonauts at 1920x1080.

 

[Huffman]

It's gonna work just fine. Modern games don't rely on your CPU that much. Your Graphics Card will make all the difference. 2x2GHz is fine.
I would think that, since your cpu is a couple of years old, your graphics card is as well. And you may have problems because of that...

 

[synergy1]

To reiterate huffmans point, odds are your Video card will be more of a bottle neck than your CPU. I need to use CAD ( engineering design program) on my work station and require a good video card; ASUS is a decent brand and Nvidia has worked well for my needs.