do quad cores just need their default speed for playing... say ut3 or do you need to overclock the processor for optimized performance?

Mine is intel core 2 quad with 2.4 ghz each

Oh by the way i just built a new high performance PC with that processor i just mentioned
Graphics card: Nvidia e-geforce 8600 gts

8600 GTS was not a good choice, at all.

As for the processor, there is absolutely no need to overclock it. You got 4 cores clocked at 2.4 GHz each, UE3.0 is capable of using dualcores, but the ability to use more than that isn't as effective from what I have seen and read. Never the less the game will use all 4 to it's advantage.

Just pump up the video settings in UT3 as high as you can without getting choppy framerates. But with that video card don't expect to max out without consequences.

check out the benchmarks on www.tomshardware.com

I'm not so sure quad core is worth it...unless you have the graphics card to go with it, and a game that supports it...

A 8600 GTS is not a wonderful card. Decent, but not wonderful

A quad core costs less than $10 more than a dualcore with a vastly similar clock frequency. How is that not worth it?

I have a overclocked 8600 gts and it plays with an average of 40 fps on maxed graphics on UT3

I Don't mean to start a war, here, but do you mind sharing your sources, Bjossi? I did a quick search in Newegg and found that the difference between dual and quad core Intel is about $220-$130=$90
Sources:
Intel Quad: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi ... ore+2+Quad
Intel Dual: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi ... +-+2.49GHz

With AMD, the difference is even more exaggerated: quad-dual=$214-$66=$148.
AMD Quad: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi ... +-+2.49GHz
AMD Dual: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi ... +-+2.49GHz

I hear from many people that Intel is winning the race, so i guess that's why AMD is so much cheaper; you simply get what you pay for? In any case, either Intel quads a great deal or Intel duals are too expensive

Q6600 + 3 gigs RAM + 8800GT = max out without consequences (well, except on f00king Coret's midsection, Deck, and a few other poorly optimized maps). Steady 60something fps all over.

UT2K4 maps, otoh, are something of a mixed bag. Many maps that ran like ass on my old rig still do, though not as badly and (now) on holy sh!t settings. Nonetheless, it is kinda disappointing, as you'd expect steady triple digit fps when playing a 4 year old game on (relatively) state of the art hardware. Does UT2K4 also have an fps cap option? I'd gladly sacrifice the occasional 150 or whatever fps for a smoother overall experience... Constantly going from low double to high triple digits and vice versa is NOT fun!

Tyster, I said vastly similar, not identical clock frequencies. Plus the range varies based on how fancy you want the processors to be. Going with E6550 gives us a $60 difference. For 2 extra cores clocked the same as the 2 of a C2D, $60 ain't much. The range can be brought even lower if we dig around other places than just newegg.

The point is, the opinion that a quad core is not worth it is becoming an outdated statement. The 2 extra cores may not be fully utilized, but believe it or not, there is a day after this one.

Not where I come from....
The differences is in the the thousands....

If there is a fault in the mapping, a framerate can go down for the most powerful computers. We also need to take engine capabilities into account.

For example: System Shock 2, which is from 1999, lagged my older computer quite a bit when I installed a hi-res texture mod and a HD model pack. That computer could run Doom 3, which used even higher res textures and models, at steady 60 FPS on high settings. So it comes down to if the mapper/modder is stressing the limits of an engine, or doesn't optimize effectively. Or even both.

Never hear that before. Are we talking mainframe processors, such as Sun's chips?

I doubt he means thousands of dollars. Though I'm not sure what the S-Africa currency is.

8600GTS is made of win. I've had no troubles ever, and I still have money in my pocket.

The 8800 GT is a better choice. It may have slightly slower clock speeds, but it has the advantage of 2x more dedicated vRAM along with a 256-bit interface instead of the 8600 GTS' 128-bit. All that for just a little extra.

My 8600 gts is good enough. Ran ut3 demo on the highest settings possible and got about 50-60 fps, but then again it was a demo.

But the processor i have now is better than my previous AMD duel core

The reason i bought my graphic card is because it about $170, it was on sale, decreasing the price to $120

The new 8800GTS 512MB is a very good choice also. It features a G92 which makes it 10% faster than the 8800GTX and 20% faster than the 8800GT, though this doesn't apply on very big resolutions.

That could be caused by the lesser vRAM of the 8800 GTX. It can store somewhat more data simultaneously than the GTS or the GT.