Now that I have a big honkin' dual core, ddr2, 680i uber-rig, I thought I'd redo the FEAR test I did a while back. If you recall, I basically equaled or beat the scores of vastly superior systems with my "humble" ddr, single core, AMD rig.
So, what difference does a 3.15ghz Core 2 Duo, DDR2 800 at 4-4-4-12-1T, cutting-edge motherboard system make in FEAR? The answer: zero. And I don't mean zero as in, "practically zero". I mean literally zero.
Previously, at max settings, 4xAA + 16xAF, I averaged 101 frames per second. This time, I averaged... 101 frames per second. Bumping it up to 8xAA, I had averaged 88 frames per second. This time, I averaged... are you ready?... 88 frames per second. So at least in FEAR, all the whiz-bang technology makes literally zero difference. The bottleneck continues to be the graphics card, plain and simple.
There is one small caveat, which is that I have yet to install my Creative Soundblaster card. However, last time, disabling the sound card yielded no change in the frame rate.
So, is a whiz-bang, cutting edge system a waste of cash? No. I can definitely see the difference of a dual-core processor in multitasking. Additionally, FEAR is not a threaded game, so there is not likely to be a difference with dual-cores anyway. Not to mention that FEAR's in-game test does not run any AI algorithms, which would certainly benefit from the added CPU power. But my little test at least goes to show that you do not have to spend a ton of cash to get a fantastic gaming experience.
