the current thought is that single core will beat a dual core in gaming, but that is due to the fact that games are designed with single in core in mind. It could be that in the future they begin developing games around dual-core cpu's. when that happens, i believe that dual core will be better in gaming. so why not go for it?
The main reason not to go for it is that a much more expensive dual core cpu rated 700+ above a single core still runs the same or slower.
[Your graphs show that AMD X2s are great at extracting parallelization (unlike Intel which has a horrible dual core architecture). It doesn't measure improvements in choppy areas at all.]
They don't say anything about which subjective areas of gaming performance are affected. But what they do undeniably show is that BF2 and CoD are utilizing both processors at levels that would saturate a single core. End of story. If there were one core then both games would get less work done per tick, i.e. they perform better on the dual core.
They don't say anything about which subjective areas of gaming performance are affected. But what they do undeniably show is that BF2 and CoD are utilizing both processors at levels that would saturate a single core. End of story. If there were one core then both games would get less work done per tick, i.e. they perform better on the dual core.
Because buying hardware for future software is never a good idea.
[If and ] when those optimized games are released, dual-core tech will be considerably cheaper.
bob4432
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2003
- 11,727
- 46
- 91
i will have to run bf2 on my machine with ht on and off, since the os sees 2 cpus, just like a dc (i know the architecture is different, but it is what the os sees here and how it offloads other threads since bf2 is basically a single threaded game with other smaller threads )
and i will do it at 1280x960. like i said earlier, you don't need the extreme hardware unless you are playing @ 1920x1440
I did take a look at your graphs for COD and BF2 and could not find your scenario where the load would over-saturate a single core.
In fact the game benchmarks in actual playtime after loading show a reflection graph along the y-axis at th 50% mark which makes it easy to tell that the max of both graphs added would not exceed 100%.
I invite other others to take a look at the 4 graphs and search for a position where values of both graphs get above 100%.
In any case, there should be some overhead of multiprocessing and what not.
earthman
Golden Member
- Oct 16, 1999
- 1,653
- 0
- 71
I have a lowly P4 3.0 and have no plans to upgrade it anytime soon, it's plenty fast. I will not be taken in by hype over features that aren't even supported in any software I use. Building your system around the performance issues of a single game really defeats the purpose of a PC, doesn't it?
So can anyone else take a look the processor util charts for COD and BF2 in:-
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1702435&enterthread=y
and identify a spot along the graph where the added values exceeds 100% (which basically means, more than 1 core is saturated).
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1702435&enterthread=y
and identify a spot along the graph where the added values exceeds 100% (which basically means, more than 1 core is saturated).
As I said in the other thread, look more closely. If you like I will alter the images and add some highlights. There are many points where the combined utilization is 100% or close to it, and that is saturation. There are a few points where the combined utilization exceeds 100%. That means something would have been waiting at that point on a single core system, whereas the dual core has plenty of cycles left on both cores.
Honestly, people have their preferences, and should run what makes sense for them from a price/performance perspective. There are lots of criteria that a given person might apply. But one of them cannot be the assertion that dual core offers no advantage in Windows software, including games.
Honestly, people have their preferences, and should run what makes sense for them from a price/performance perspective. There are lots of criteria that a given person might apply. But one of them cannot be the assertion that dual core offers no advantage in Windows software, including games.
forgive me if this is a stupid question, but can't they take say all of the sound processing or physics processing and offload it onto the second CPU. that right there would net a nice little boost in performance wouldn't it?
Yes, changes like that would probably be fairly straightforward. Right now most games are processing in a single-threaded loop, i.e gather input, update model, update sound, render view, display frame, start over. What you have to do is perform a concurrency analysis on the data structures touched by each of those major chunks of processing to find the dependencies. For example, you probably can't start rendering a soundscape until you have gathered input and updated the model. But once soundscape rendering starts it should be able to be concurrent with other processing. You might have a graphics rendering thread, and a soundscape rendering thread, both waiting on a semaphore that tells them the world model is refreshed, at which point they render the view and soundscape concurrently. These kinds of changes will likely be where games go first in taking advantage of multiprocessor architectures.
The key industry change that is taking place is that multiprocessing is being mainstreamed into the consumer market. Windows already takes advantage of it to a great extent, and in the future games and other apps will be specifically architected to perform CPU-intensive tasks concurrently on more than one core.
The key industry change that is taking place is that multiprocessing is being mainstreamed into the consumer market. Windows already takes advantage of it to a great extent, and in the future games and other apps will be specifically architected to perform CPU-intensive tasks concurrently on more than one core.
I replied to your original thread.
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1702435&enterthread=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1702435&enterthread=y
If you do a lot of video encoding I would say that dual core is a must. Otherwise it is completely optional (and unnecessary) at this time no matter what the hardware junkies on this forum will tell you.
Not true really. Multitasking is only one benefit to dual core. Multi-threaded apps like Photoshop and many video editors are just a few examples of a single app that take advantage of Dual Core and have significant performance increases with Dual Core.
Also, NVidia will be releasing Multi-threaded drivers fairly soon. They are in Beta now. This will give gaming improvements to Dual Core processors in all games as a result. And Dual Cores aren't slouches in that area now.
All of these things have nothing to do with Multi-tasking either.
Again, not true. Dual cores peform in games better than single cores of the same clock and cache. And once the official multi-threaded drivers and then as Multi-threaded games are released, Single cores simply won't be able to keep up.
Dual Core's aren't a MUST have, but they are better than a lot of people realize. But, Single cores won't be useless a year from now either. But, as multi-threaded apps and games become more common they will be at a bigger dissadvantage sooner than previous generations of CPUs.
Well, a stock 3800+ X2 would be faster than a stock 3200+ in all games and applications (with the same video board).
With a $1300 budget, you shouldn't have to give up a good video card to get the 3800+ X2.
Really the main point I want to get accross is that Single cores have no advantage over Dual Cores except in price. And the price difference isn't as drastic as you would think. To match the 3800+ in gaming you would need to get at least a 3500+ single core. And in fact, the top end Single core is only slightly faster in games than the top end X2. And once the Multi-Threaded Video drivers are released You'll need to get a single core priced at the same level of the X2 to get the same gaming performance. And this will be very soon.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,783
- 6,341
- 126
Tough question to answer and I keep going back and forth myself as I will be upgrading this week. Right now I'm leaning towards dual-core as when I virus scan or do something else intensive I pretty much need to let my system do it's thing and find something else formyself to do. 
I also am doing 3 different BOINC projects and the dual-core will be nice!
I also am doing 3 different BOINC projects and the dual-core will be nice!
[Dual core is defenetly not a must.]
That's definitely true. Those of us who have them, and have tested them, are not hyping the performance benefits, but you don't have to pay for those benefits now.
That's definitely true. Those of us who have them, and have tested them, are not hyping the performance benefits, but you don't have to pay for those benefits now.
I'm starting to abandon other forums for anandtech because the {H}ype just gets too carried away. Other forums might lead you to believe a 3800+ X2 is definitely better than a 3700+ san diego for gaming even if you don't multitask at all. Well, I upgraded about 3 weeks ago and went with a middle range single core and oc'ed it to 2.7ghz. A don't think the cheapest X2 could pull that off with a 100% chance, so, I would be losing performance in games, spending more money and letting the other core go to waste because I don't do any really intensive multitasking, unless you count having Office open at the same time as firefox and AIM. I'm waiting until if and when dual core become the norm further on down the road so I can, see more benifit for use, better revisions (the memory controller on the X2 sucks I hear, reminds me of the early A64s), and cheaper prices.
I don't know how many times this has been said, but _everybody multitasks_. Unless you're running DOS, you multitask. Windows is a threaded operating system. Just about every bit of the os is multithreaded. The 3D graphics subsystem is multithreaded. The sound subsystem is multithreaded. I/O is multithreaded. Battlefield 2 has 11 threads running when logged into a multiplayer game, and utilizes both cores of a 4400+ at levels ranging from 20% to 75% or more. How is that not multitasking?
I honestly am not trying to hype this architecture. I think a less expensive single core chip like yours might be as much as many people need. All I mean to say in this and other threads is that, based on my fifteen years of experience in system development on DOS and Windows, based on the tests I have run, and based on everything I know about how Windows works, multiprocessor architectures should be far superior for 95% of applications running under that operating system, including games. Now that dual cores are cheap enough to enter the consumer mainstream I expect them to rapidly replace single core architectures as the CPU of choice for Windows.
There can be many valid reasons for not jumping on the X2 bandwagon at this time, but one that should not be on the list is "I don't multitask."
Edit: By the way, look at the top scores in the Crystalmark thread. The AMD dual core systems outstrip the scores for Intel dual and single cores, and AMD single cores, by a wide margin.
I honestly am not trying to hype this architecture. I think a less expensive single core chip like yours might be as much as many people need. All I mean to say in this and other threads is that, based on my fifteen years of experience in system development on DOS and Windows, based on the tests I have run, and based on everything I know about how Windows works, multiprocessor architectures should be far superior for 95% of applications running under that operating system, including games. Now that dual cores are cheap enough to enter the consumer mainstream I expect them to rapidly replace single core architectures as the CPU of choice for Windows.
There can be many valid reasons for not jumping on the X2 bandwagon at this time, but one that should not be on the list is "I don't multitask."
Edit: By the way, look at the top scores in the Crystalmark thread. The AMD dual core systems outstrip the scores for Intel dual and single cores, and AMD single cores, by a wide margin.
If you've ever experienced lag while running a process (like antivirus) and wanted to open windows and stuff like that, dual cores HELPS A LOT. Trust me. Just do it you pansy, buy the DUAL CORE!!
I just updated the dual core utilization test thread with data from a test run tonight using the new nVidia 81.82 beta drivers. These are the latest iteration of the drivers with dual core optimizations, and the results are eye-opening, to say the least. In BF2 the game consistently utilized both cores at an average of 65%.
Hearing all this back and forth talk is starting to worry me. On Friday, I ordered an ASROCK 939Dual-SATA2 M1695 RT motherboard and a 4400+ X2 processor from Newegg. I also ordered 2 gb (2 x 1 gb) of OCZ Platinum PC3200 ram. This is an upgrade from a 2500+ mobile Barton running at 2.3 ghz, an Abit NF7-S v2.0 and 1 gb (2 x 512 mb) PC3200 Corsair.
I am a graphic designer, so I use Photoshop and Illustrator a lot. From what I understand the X2 will benefit from Photoshop. Is this true? I also do some gaming, especially BF2. Did I make a good choice? I will be doing graphic design as well as gaming on this machine. Thanx!
I am a graphic designer, so I use Photoshop and Illustrator a lot. From what I understand the X2 will benefit from Photoshop. Is this true? I also do some gaming, especially BF2. Did I make a good choice? I will be doing graphic design as well as gaming on this machine. Thanx!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 391
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter