Do games utilize dual core CPUs?

[RU482]

For instance, say I want to upgrade an OCd XP2500 to a Athlon 64 3600 x2. Both running at the same speed (1.9Ghz) Video cards aside, will there be any difference in gameplay of Battlefield 2?

Does that game utilize both cores, or just one?

 

[DaveSimmons]

3600 x2 and 3800 x2 are both slower than a P4 3.2 or A64 3200+ for most games.

Most games get only about a 10% speedup from the second core. Quake4 and Oblivion get a bit more, especially on slow dual-cores like the 3600 and P4 805D.

For no-budget gaming a faster single core 3500+ - 4000+ probably makes more sense.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

It totally depends on how the game was programmed. Supreme COmmander was made to take full advantage of dual cores.

 

[Noema]

Source engine is also undergoing modifications to be multithreaded.

I hear Alan Wake will be one of the first games to run exclusivelly on multi-core.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Noema
Source engine is also undergoing modifications to be multithreaded.

I hear Alan Wake will be one of the first games to run exclusivelly on multi-core.

That would be retarded. Not you, but for them. Any game that comes out within the next 2 years that doesn't support single core would be to commit folly of the greatest form. It would be like not supporting the 7600GT or non SLI at this point. It is true that Dual Core is becoming more common it will be quite a while before the majority of the game bases (casual included) will be 90% on dual core. If I had to predict, I would say perhaps 50% gamers worldwide will still be on single core 2 years from now.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Noema
Source engine is also undergoing modifications to be multithreaded.

I hear Alan Wake will be one of the first games to run exclusivelly on multi-core.

That would be retarded. Not you, but for them. Any game that comes out within the next 2 years that doesn't support single core would be to commit folly of the greatest form. It would be like not supporting the 7600GT or non SLI at this point. It is true that Dual Core is becoming more common it will be quite a while before the majority of the game bases (casual included) will be 90% on dual core. If I had to predict, I would say perhaps 50% gamers worldwide will still be on single core 2 years from now.

I've heard AW will indeed need multi (most likely quad) cores to run properly. The amount of processing required for that game is going to be immense. To be honest, I'm excited for it.

 

[Homerboy]

quad? NEEDED? highly doubtful
they'd have what... 1% of the market as potential buyers?

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Just having a game be dual-core "aware" or "utilize" the second core, doesn't necessarily translate to actual performance increases though. Quake4 is still a perfect example of this. At lower resolutions (in this case, I'm considering 1280x1024 to be "lower"), Quake4 can gain as much as a 40% increase clock-for-clock dual vs. single. At higher resolutions, that increase drops to 0%.

I have no doubt that, in the future, this will improve so that more and more games are utilizing the dual-core architecture better (such as Alan Wake, separating particular tasks to different cores). And, with dual-core chips becoming so mainstream (I can't imagine building a new machine today without one), it makes sense to use one even if there is no major benefit for you at the moment.

But, for those of us still on s939 single-core, we find ourselves in a bit of a jam. Do I spend money on a dual-core CPU that won't benefit my gaming much (at my resolution), or do I spend that money on a faster video card that is guaranteed to increase my performance by quite a bit? Or do I just save as much as I can and upgrade my whole platform when I can?

This comes down to individual choice, really. But, if I had a decent video card such as a 7900gt, with a single-core A64 running at around 2.4ghz, I would throw that $150 into a new video card before I threw it at an X2 3800+ (for gaming).

But, if you're gaming on an LCD that limits you to 1280x1024, or often run CPU-intensive tasks such as video encoding (especially *while* gaming), find an amazing deal on a s939 X2, or have a very good video card and just want to spend some more money, or even run into a new game which benchmarks show to benefit greatly from dual-core, go for it.

 

[TehMac]

Company of Heroes, Supreme Commander, Crysis, and newer games under the Games for Windows logo will most likely have multitherading support. Its a good thing to have.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel
Just having a game be dual-core "aware" or "utilize" the second core, doesn't necessarily translate to actual performance increases though. Quake4 is still a perfect example of this. At lower resolutions (in this case, I'm considering 1280x1024 to be "lower"), Quake4 can gain as much as a 40% increase clock-for-clock dual vs. single. At higher resolutions, that increase drops to 0%.

Thats because the video card kicks in as the bottleneck methinks.

Since Intel's entire midrange product line and high is dual core, as is AMD's, I don't see a problem with developers making games that require dual core CPUs. Shoot, by 2008, even the low end CPUs will be dual core.

Edit - But to answer the OP's question, in that case, it wouldn't much of an upgrade. The money invested isn't worth any potential performance gains. I'm not going to make any recommendations for CPUs or such because I don't know what else you do with your computer or your budget though.

 

[BFG10K]

Most games have no speed-up but you can usually see minor gains from multi-threaded GPU drivers.

 

[xtknight]

All requiring a dual-core would do is reduce their market share. It really wouldn't make any sense. And it certainly won't require a quad-core. That just doesn't make any sense from any perspective.

(Certainly, this will change with time.)

But what are they gaining by excluding single-core CPUs even if they run extremely slow? Certainly they could have dual-core in the minimum specs but that doesn't mean they have to prevent it from running on any x86 CPU. I think that by excluding certain CPUs they're violating some unalienable compatibility rights. Besides, it's just messy. It's the OS's job to distribute workload in the most appropriate fashion. If a faster single core ever happens to come out, what then if the program requires dual-core?

Anyway, to answer the OP, yes games may utilize dual-core at their will. They are at the same mercy as any other application. The programmer must implement threading in the app, and in an efficient (what is called "SMP aware") fashion. There are a couple reasons why SMP-aware apps are few and far between: 1) some workloads are hard to distribute without diminishing returns; 2) it is hard to synchronize reads/writes amongst both of the execution cores, that is, the cores need to access and modify the same data at the same time. Usually 2) is solved by using spinlocks, which waste cycles in the whole app as they loop until the data is accessible in an exclusive/synchronized fashion.

 

[microAmp]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
3600 x2 and 3800 x2 are both slower than a P4 3.2 or A64 3200+ for most games.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2484&p=10

Am I missing something?

 

[BFG10K]

Quake4 is still a perfect example of this. At lower resolutions (in this case, I'm considering 1280x1024 to be "lower"), Quake4 can gain as much as a 40% increase clock-for-clock dual vs. single. At higher resolutions, that increase drops to 0%.

That's a GPU bottleneck kicking in, something that would also happen if you were comparing two single core processors.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Quake4 is still a perfect example of this. At lower resolutions (in this case, I'm considering 1280x1024 to be "lower"), Quake4 can gain as much as a 40% increase clock-for-clock dual vs. single. At higher resolutions, that increase drops to 0%.

That's a GPU bottleneck kicking in, something that would also happen if you were comparing two single core processors.

Yup. And that's exactly my point-- if you play at high res (1680x1050 or higher), then a dual-core CPU is likely to give you NO benefit over its equally-clocked counter-part (and likely not much benefit over a much slower CPU, such as comparing an X6800 at 3.6ghz to a 3500+ at 2ghz.).

While the coding of the game is important, the settings the user plays at are even moreso. Granted, all of my opinions are only valid for the current crop of games out now... things could change in the future.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: microAmp

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
3600 x2 and 3800 x2 are both slower than a P4 3.2 or A64 3200+ for most games.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2484&p=10

Am I missing something?

While I don't agree with Dave that they are slower than a 3200+, that link you posted only gives 1024x768 resolution. That's not a good indication of gaming performance at realistic settings. If anyone out there *is*, in fact, gaming at 1024x768, then the question of "how fast of a processor should they get" is kinda moot... it's time to upgrade that monitor or video card, imo.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel
If anyone out there *is*, in fact, gaming at 1024x768, then the question of "how fast of a processor should they get" is kinda moot... it's time to upgrade that monitor or video card, imo.

This may shock you, but the majority of people do game at 1024x768. The enthusiasts that run at 1280x1024 and higher are the minority. The average gaming computer is something with a P4 2.0 to 2.6 Ghz, with an FX 5200 or Radeon 9550 to 9600 Pro, and usually 512 of RAM. Its rather sad.

Heck, I had to show someone how to run his 19in LCD higher than 800x600.

 

[rstrohkirch]

I've always seen multi core gaming as a way to achieve better AI, physics, particle systems...essentially how the source engine is going to be set up

If you're going to have extra cpu power laying around then simply use more of it

 

[Aikouka]

It's also good to note that dual-core CPUs also mess up some games. Well actually... to be fair, it's Windows thread control and possibly the coding method that messes the games up, but you won't see the problem on a standard single-core CPU.

Try playing GTA: SA without setting the affinity to 1 core. It's crazy :laugh:.

 

[Nothinman]

Well actually... to be fair, it's Windows thread control and possibly the coding method that messes the games up, but you won't see the problem on a standard single-core CPU.

To be really fair it's not a problem with Windows threading at all but one with the game, if the developer used threads they should have anticipated that it might be run on an SMP system and did proper locking.

Try playing GTA: SA without setting the affinity to 1 core. It's crazy

Which is truly sad since GTA:SA isn't an old game at all, they should have known better.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: Noema
I hear Alan Wake will be one of the first games to run exclusivelly on multi-core.

You hear wrong.. Complete BS my friend.. It will take serious advantage of multi cores,but certainly won't make them the norm..

 

[nova2]

Try playing GTA: SA without setting the affinity to 1 core. It's crazy

you can still use a program which sets the affinity automatically at runtime, at least this helps.

try these:
http://www.beyondlogic.org/solutions/processutil/processutil.htm
http://www.robpol86.com/Pages/imagecfg.php
this one modifies the EXE!

http://www.activeplus.com/us/freeware/runfirst/
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=af...t+%22Author%3A+JakFrost%22&btnG=Search

 

[Aikouka]

Oh I didn't mind playing GTA:SA on a dual-core without setting the affinity. Although it made missions impossible, the awkward speed-ups were actually kind of fun at some points . Especially since GTA has always been the same thing ever darn game.

 

[Smilin]

Some games yes. Id software games have for years. All games with the new logo must support dual core. Some examples: Supreme Commander, MS Flight Sim X (the latter spins up three threads so it will run veeeerrry nice on quad cores.

Keep in mind that even if the game is single threaded the game will still benefit from multicore. The game will be hammering one CPU so the OS is clever enough to shove most other tasks over to the other CPU. This can include interrupt servicing that the game is relying on (like say servicing interrupts for your video, nic and sound cards)

Developers have said the real gains to multi-core will begin to shine in quad core. The benefits of dual core just aren't significant enough to justify the extra dev cost. When quad starts to get a foothold expect to see a lot of multicore games.