All Quad Core users. Must read!

[Anomaly1964]

wrong thread...sorry

 

[aigomorla]

And who else renders? Not I, not most people.

possibly most of the hexcore users.. Not all of us only game on a PC.

I think thats why intel came out with hexcore and HT.

Why must I read this again?

+ A MILLION

I dont get it... whats wrong with this forum lately..

Why is it as xmas is getting closer people are trying to bash upper tier?

Did you guys find out your wallets cant support upper tier for xmas?

Are you all unhappy because it costs an arm and a leg?

Well why must you flame upper tier if you guys dont qualify?

Lately these threads are filling our cpu and overclocking section.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Why is it as xmas is getting closer people are trying to bash upper tier?

Did you guys find out your wallets cant support upper tier for xmas?

Are you all unhappy because it costs an arm and a leg?

Well why must you flame upper tier if you guys dont qualify?

Lately these threads are filling our cpu and overclocking section.

And I used to think that a $260 DFI X48 board was "upper tier".

 

[theAnimal]

I keep seeing people using the word "usage" to refer the percentage from task manager, but that really isn't usage, it is "unavailability."

My task manager is almost always at 100%, but the CPU is almost always 100% available.

 

[Gillbot]

My junk is hardly upper tier, it's mostly hand me downs and cheap fs/ft deals.

 

[tweakboy]

Tweak, for sure our GPUs are holding us back! I have a 4830 overclocked, which is about a 9800gtx in performance, and overclocking doesnt help much except in SC2 and DiRT2. Thats about it though. If I had a 460 or a 6850 it would be a good match for my CPU.

Your totally right my friend. But still I run games at 1920x1080 highest quality in nvpanel and 16x AF 0xAA and UT3 to BlackOps to NFS Hot pursuit all run wonderfully. Maybe for a quick second fps can drop to 42fps then jumps right back up.

GPU technology is evolving but software and game engines are slow. The only reason to get a 460 or something is to use AA which I dont like using anyway.

 

[soccerballtux]

I used to overclock every CPU I had. Handed down a Q6600 with nvidia 7600T.
I'm working with an AMD Callisto 550 (unlocked to a stable quad) + an ATI 4770 at stock speed and voltage and happy with it. My next CPU is a [4 or 6 or 8 core + good DX11] piece of silicon with good cool & quiet mechanism to throttle down when my computer uses only 1 or 2 cores.
My goal is to draw as less power supply as possible.

I can't wait to get rid of discrete video cards and/or NB/SB chips.

dang you's a LURKER!

 

[halley]

possibly most of the hexcore users.. Not all of us only game on a PC.

I think thats why intel came out with hexcore and HT.



+ A MILLION

I dont get it... whats wrong with this forum lately..

Why is it as xmas is getting closer people are trying to bash upper tier?

Did you guys find out your wallets cant support upper tier for xmas?

Are you all unhappy because it costs an arm and a leg?

Well why must you flame upper tier if you guys dont qualify?

Lately these threads are filling our cpu and overclocking section.

It's wrong to bash upper tier. It's also wrong to waste natural resources.
If you earn your living by working with speedy computers and every second counts, get the fastest tools. If you're an avid gamer and can responsibly afford it, get an AMD 5990 or nvidia 580. After all, a happy citizen is more productive.

What I don't understand is exhortation from many web sites 'fastest is the best'. Then benchmarks after benchmarks...I think that defeats the purpose of community, which is proudly displayed by web sites.

 

[McLovin]

Tweakboy,

[sarcasm] Buy an SSD, low level format that bad boy, and after you are done installing everything, defrag that bad mother! [/sarcasm]

You'll blow money on overpriced mice, but not on a good SSD or better processor?

Another classic tweakboy thread . . .

annnnnnnnnnnd.......

Why does someone so against new tech hang out in a tech forum?

/thread

Man, I mean how many times do we all have to go over and over the same stuff? We're all glad that you are happy with the way your system works, but why keep trying to tell us that upgrading is worthless when we can show you undeniable data otherwise?

 

[mv2devnull]

Man, I mean how many times do we all have to go over and over the same stuff?

Is this what the ignore list feature is for?


Oops, I own a mere dual core. Therefore, I must not read this thread. However, I do use a quad. :\ .Forget the 'a' -- I'll willingly devour all the quads at the office and more. Nevertheless, the real bottleneck is in the brain.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

that game is horribly coded though. It uses at MOST 2 threads.
Tell me, if there's 100 enemies on the screen, why can't the engine scale to 100 cores?
They dropped the ball.

Besides, SC2 is a far cry from the fun days of SC1. Find another game that requires a 4Ghz core i7 to play smoothly and I'll give you 15 I can play smoothly on an 3+ghz Phenom 2 quad core.

You want a thread for each enemy? That is a bit much...

 

[Rifter]

You want a thread for each enemy? That is a bit much...

no kidding

 

[soccerballtux]

no kidding

My mistake, it's much better to use only one thread and completely waste the other 50-75% of available computing resources.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

My mistake, it's much better to use only one thread and completely waste the other 50-75% of available computing resources.

100 threads would be an absolute pain to code, and would likely degrade performance.

 

[Rifter]

100 threads would be an absolute pain to code, and would likely degrade performance.

this is exactly what i was going to say.

Im all for multithreading and think it should be better implemented and as game engines advance i think it will be.

The problem right now is console ports are all we have for the most part and are based on 5+ year old engines that may have been slightly tweaked with updates but not to the point of full multithreading. 100 threads would be complete overkill, they are having a hard enough time coding a game to fully utilize 4.

I think when the next gen consoles hit then we will see new game engines and then we will finally have well threaded games for PC because i believe the next gen consoles will have 4+ core CPU's, the PS3 already does but most PS3 games are either PS3 exclusive with no PC port, or are xbox ports.

 

[aigomorla]

It's wrong to bash upper tier. It's also wrong to waste natural resources..

Im sorry im an American.

To us, wasting natural resources is almost natural like apple banning porn.

 

[Throckmorton]

this is exactly what i was going to say.

Im all for multithreading and think it should be better implemented and as game engines advance i think it will be.

The problem right now is console ports are all we have for the most part and are based on 5+ year old engines that may have been slightly tweaked with updates but not to the point of full multithreading. 100 threads would be complete overkill, they are having a hard enough time coding a game to fully utilize 4.

I think when the next gen consoles hit then we will see new game engines and then we will finally have well threaded games for PC because i believe the next gen consoles will have 4+ core CPU's, the PS3 already does but most PS3 games are either PS3 exclusive with no PC port, or are xbox ports.

What do you mean? A lot of these crossplatform games like Battlefield Bad Company 2, Dragon Age, etc run terribly on dual cores even though they aren't using 100%. I'm about to upgrade my C2D to a C2Q just so I can stop bottlenecking my 3 year old 8800GT.

The Xbox 360 is triple core, so I assume those games have to be multithreaded

 

[toyota]

What do you mean? A lot of these crossplatform games like Battlefield Bad Company 2, Dragon Age, etc run terribly on dual cores even though they aren't using 100%. I'm about to upgrade my C2D to a C2Q just so I can stop bottlenecking my 3 year old 8800GT.

The Xbox 360 is triple core, so I assume those games have to be multithreaded

Bad Company 2 runs just fine on a fast Core 2 Duo in DX10 or DX9. depending on exactly which Core 2 duo you have, your 8800gt would the bottleneck for that game as I ran it just fine with my E8500 and gtx260. I still needed to keep HBAO off for best results because my gtx260 is not quite strong enough.

 

[soccerballtux]

100 threads would be an absolute pain to code, and would likely degrade performance.

this is exactly what i was going to say.

Im all for multithreading and think it should be better implemented and as game engines advance i think it will be.

The problem right now is console ports are all we have for the most part and are based on 5+ year old engines that may have been slightly tweaked with updates but not to the point of full multithreading. 100 threads would be complete overkill, they are having a hard enough time coding a game to fully utilize 4.

I think when the next gen consoles hit then we will see new game engines and then we will finally have well threaded games for PC because i believe the next gen consoles will have 4+ core CPU's, the PS3 already does but most PS3 games are either PS3 exclusive with no PC port, or are xbox ports.

have neither of you never dynamically spawned threads? Sheesh

 

[Rifter]

SC2 wants a high IPC CPU. Therefore Core i5 / i7 is king.

It would have been good if it could take more advantage of quads... but alas thats not to be. It's not the first and won't be the last game that is not highly multi-threaded.

I agree, intel is best for SC2. It would have also helped if it wasnt in development since before quad cores really became the norm.

 

[soccerballtux]

I agree, intel is best for SC2. It would have also helped if it wasnt in development since before quad cores really became the norm.

yeah I don't understand how they didn't have the foresight to do it anyway...doesn't make sense to me. SC2 came out and octo-core parts are almost here.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

^That. Graphics card companies plan 3-4 years ahead of current games and technologies. Intel/AMD also plan that far ahead for process techs that don't exist yet. Whereas game developers won't plan for dynamic thread spawning when the trend for the better part of a decade now has been towards multi-threaded software and hardware?

 

[IntelUser2000]

Benchmarks have shown 4 core enabled i7's were much faster than 2 and 1 core versions, so I don't know what's wrong here. The gains weren't 100%, but you won't get 100% anywhere else either. Even Tier 1 games have shown developers struggle to maintain a balance between performance/graphics/gameplay.

 

[Rifter]

Even Tier 1 games have shown developers struggle to maintain a balance between performance/graphics/gameplay.

This is a understatement. You get games like Crysis that no one can play maxed out unless they spend $1000+ on GPU's or wait a few years for tech to catch up. Then you get games you can play at 100FPS+ on 3 year old hardware(most console ports).

 

[exar333]

^That. Graphics card companies plan 3-4 years ahead of current games and technologies. Intel/AMD also plan that far ahead for process techs that don't exist yet. Whereas game developers won't plan for dynamic thread spawning when the trend for the better part of a decade now has been towards multi-threaded software and hardware?

But most people don't have quad-cores. SC2 is not even the same market at those who play Crysis, for example. They want to push the envelope of a dual-core system, but the game needs to be mass-market enough that not only cutting-edge systems can play it. Quad and hexa-core systems may be more prevalent now, but remember that a majority of users still have dual core systems (2006ish to now), and many still use single core A64s or P4s.