Dual Core or Pentium for Gaming??

  bigbelly 21:41 14 Jan 2007

We are looking to buy a new computer which will be predominantly used for gaming and internet use / webcam etc. Not being totally up to speed with the latest technology we're a bit confused about whether a Dual Core or a Pentium processor would be better. The games we use are quite high spec and say they need approx 2.8Ghz processor speed but the Dual core processors seem to be around 1.8Ghz whereas the Pentiums go up to around 3.4Ghz. When we've asked in shops about which would be best for us, we've had totally conflicting advice. Sorry if this seems a bit basic but if anyone has any advice? We're looking to spend around £800 - any suggestions on good systems? Many thanks.

  lisa02 21:52 14 Jan 2007

Pentium is old.

  Starfox 21:59 14 Jan 2007

Not sure what Lisa means by that but if you read the magazine reviews you will see that the new core 2 duo processors more or less rule the roost.

As far as i know a 1.8 ghz core 2 duo has 2 x 1.8 ghz cores but I am sure someone more knowledgable than I will be along to explain.

  Totally-braindead 22:02 14 Jan 2007

He means which is best for gaming, Pentium 4 or Dual Core.
I would answer bigbelly but I'm not sure of the answer I use AMD processors.

  lisa02 22:07 14 Jan 2007

Core 2 duo are the bees knees, the dogs danglies and they outstrip the old Pentiums and the new AMD chips.

  Joe R 22:07 14 Jan 2007


The dual core cpu's are made with a different manufacturing process, and pack more power into a smaller die size. This also allows the transistors to run cooler (so faster).

The core2 duo Intel cpu's are head and shoulders above any of the others available, and are better suited to gaming.

P.S. i've also been running AMD's for the last seven or eight years, but Intel is my next one. (unless AMD can better these chips).

  Totally-braindead 22:35 14 Jan 2007

Regarding the speeds of the processors. I know this is confusing but the faster speed a processor can run at does not automatically make it faster. I know this appears not to make sense but its to do with how they handle the information.
As an example I have an AMD 3500+ now this runs at 2.21ghz BUT its equivalent in speed to a 3.5 ghz Pentium hence its designation 3500.
Running the 2 processors against each other they will perform similarly.
This will give you a rough idea of what I mean click here . I'm sorry to confuse you further but you did ask.
This is a bit more up to date click here if you see 2 similar PCs with different processors you can use this to see yourself which is the fastest.

You don't necessarily need the fastest processor to play games. Equally important is having a decent graphics card and a good chunk of memory. And you have a budget of £800 so you'll not get an entire system fitted with the fastest processor anyway.
As an example I have an AMD 3500 with 1 gig of RAM and a GeForce7600GS and so far its played everything. I am thinking of more memory and perhaps a faster card but what you should be trying to get for your money is something like this click here £526.40 has a reasonable graphics card just add monitor and a printer if you need one. Not sure if it comes with speakers, if not add them as well.

  [email protected] 22:43 14 Jan 2007

like totally braindead i have 64 3500+ with 7600gt, which was a spur of the moment purchase as i no nothing, but i do know an awful lot of friends who have paid over two grand for intel machines wondering why they get get slow down running games at full spec and i dont get any!

  Totally-braindead 22:45 14 Jan 2007

Should have said my PC has played everything at 1024 x 768 resolution, I haven't tried it but would think it would struggle to run the latest games at a higher resolution. Its only a 7600GS graphics card and is what I would class as a reasonable budget card nowadays, the 7600GT in the Novatech PC is better than what I have.

  [email protected] 22:51 14 Jan 2007

1400x 1050 here no probs give it a try!

  Totally-braindead 15:43 15 Jan 2007

adman 2 you've got a better card than me and my monitor won't go to that high a resolution. Its fine at 1024 x 768 at the moment but thanks anyway.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Huawei MateBook X Pro review

How Pentagram and other design agencies aim to double the number of creative female leaders

How to speed up a slow Mac

Comment résoudre des problèmes d’impressions ?