> > > Some newer games are beginning to really take advantage
> > > of quad core CPUs (and higher core counts) so in those cases, having a dual core
> > > Pentium G3258 is going to hurt you.
> > I've noticed a lot of recent games really seem to need a quad core tho. I recently
> > had to repair an old system so threw a 1050 Ti in there. While games can render
> > scenes at 60fps on max detail with no problems they also frequently pause and stall
> > when you move about while the game does actual CPU dependent tasks like AI and
> > resource management. This doesn't happen on a quad core machine of similar age. Not
> > RAM problem either fwiw.
> > So just be aware, dual core is only going to get you so far with PC gaming, no
> > how well it overclocks.
> Yep. That's exactly what I said at the end of my post (quoted above).
Yes sorry, I was trying to reaffirm your point based on personal experience and explain how it actually affects the games. I didn't word that quite how I wanted (it also shows why average performance benchmarks are kinda meaningless as they'd score high but still basically be unplayable due to the stalling, having 0 fps for 5 seconds is more significant than having 400fps for 60 seconds if you actually want to play something, but the average fps might indicate a playable game)
This applies to quite a lot of the bigger titles these days, not just 'some' This is likely due to the architecture of the modern consoles for which things are primarily targeted.