Dual Core and Games

[lifeblood]

I play online games like City of Villains while talking via Skype to the others in my group. Wouldn't I see a direct advantage with a dual core processor? As long as the CPU's operate asymetrically I would assume I would. One CPU would be running Skype, antivirus, and OS functions while the other ran the game. Or does the OS try to force the apps to run equally accross both CPU's?

For those who don't know, Skype is a VoIP program. The free version allows 5 people to talk at once. Saves having to type messages using the games chat feature.

 

[the splat in the hat]

For you in online games , dual core all the way.

I own one and for bf2 online its awsome. Its better than me fx55/x800xt.

Mine 4400+ dual core @ 2.2 each / 7800gtx,,,,,,rocks.....

 

[Griswold]

Yes, the game will run on one core and all the rest you named will be pushed over to the other core by windows. At least in that the task scheduler of windows does a proper job, even though taskman will try to tell you otherwise sometimes.

 

[PoisonCandyGram]

If all you will be doing is running skype or VoIP program and something like itunes or winamp, then I would say that it is not worth it. If you insist on running an antivirus constantly(which is completely uneccesarry imo), then it may be worth it. Games are currently not multithreaded, which you seem to understand, so both cores will not be running the game at the same time. I don't think its worth the extra $150+ dollars at this point for dual core. On the otherhand however, processors don't double in speed every 6 months like video cards, so I guess you could rationalize spending $400 on a processor in that way. Just know that it may be overkill for a little while.

 

[cuti7399]

i think in order to take full advantage of dual core, you need more ram as well. I'm running an intel 820 dual core with 3g of ram and it's sweet. Running 5 programs at one time with no hick ups.

 

[Betwon]

Originally posted by: cuti7399
i think in order to take full advantage of dual core, you need more ram as well. I'm running an intel 820 dual core with 3g of ram and it's sweet. Running 5 programs at one time with no hick ups.

So many programs?

 

[Markbnj]

Games are currently not multithreaded, which you seem to understand, so both cores will not be running the game at the same time.

No offense, but I wish people would stop saying this, as it is technically silly. All windows DirectX games are multithreaded. BF2 runs 12 threads. Both ATI and nVidia drivers are multithreaded, and specifically optimized for multiple cores. Every installation of Windows is running other processes at the same time as the game process itself is running. I have 40 processes running on my home system after boot, and exactly _one_ of them is single threaded.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

Originally posted by: Betwon

Originally posted by: cuti7399
i think in order to take full advantage of dual core, you need more ram as well. I'm running an intel 820 dual core with 3g of ram and it's sweet. Running 5 programs at one time with no hick ups.

So many programs?

the guy has 5 heads..


@markbnj: the problem is that current games (even if they are multithreaded) do not gain alot by dualcore CPUs. Even if u use Q4+patch+dualcore optimized GPu drivers from NV/ATI this will not affect performance by a large hit. 5-10% from the benches ive seen. And we all know how slow software developers react on hardware changes, take a look at 64bit - who is even using it today? everyone i know is still on 32bit (except for them linux nerds). 2006 may be the year for dualcore AND games, 2005 is for dualcore and 5 headed multitaskers or for professionel video editors, and for trendy rich fukcs of course

 

[AkumaX]

i think the biggest bottleneck are hdds. if you had like photoshop running on one hdd and WoW on another, the system would be seamless

 

[Markbnj]

the problem is that current games (even if they are multithreaded) do not gain alot by dualcore CPUs

That's not the point I am arguing. This is a technical forum, so it irritates me when people make statements like "games are not multithreaded." If what is meant is: games are not optimized for multiple CPUs" then I think it would be better to say that, as opposed to saying something that is flatly wrong.

 

[Diogenes2]

Originally posted by: AkumaX
i think the biggest bottleneck are hdds. if you had like photoshop running on one hdd and WoW on another, the system would be seamless

Unless you have more than one PCI bus, I don't see how this would help....

 

[zoz123]

Games already started to take advantage of dual core, I read an article that Quake 4 can utilize both cores. I have alot of running processes, they eat 5-10% of CPU, with single core, the performance will be lowered by 5-10% but on dualcore, I will get 100% of processor (even it will be slightly slower than single core I wil be getting 100% out of it during games which will make it faster).

 

[Unkno]

ummm, look here with the release of the 5.13 driver for ATI, the X850XT got a huge boost in performance for dual cores (around 40percent!)

 

[the splat in the hat]

ignore people whom dont own one would be my advise.
How can they know the true difference ?
Say what you will, but after my fx55, this dual 4400+ PWNS it, online gaming is in a realm of its own on dual core systems, single core will mostly be recommended by SINGLE CORE owners. Most dual core owners actually own both single and dual core systems, and to date 99 per centy that have them use THEM as there games pc.
I havent seen very many bad wright ups on dual core systems for games , writen by a gamer. I have the awsome luck of being able to pit fx55/x800xt/2gigram , against 4400+/7800gtx/2gigsram , and the results are definitive.
Offline in games like HL2 , fx55 all the way , smashes the 4400+.
ONLINE in anygame the dual is WAY better, it pulls the same fps, the core is .4 difference.
go dual core everytime from 1005 onward..............

 

[the Chase]

Originally posted by: the splat in the hat
ignore people whom dont own one would be my advise.
How can they know the true difference ?
Say what you will, but after my fx55, this dual 4400+ PWNS it, online gaming is in a realm of its own on dual core systems, single core will mostly be recommended by SINGLE CORE owners. Most dual core owners actually own both single and dual core systems, and to date 99 per centy that have them use THEM as there games pc.
I havent seen very many bad wright ups on dual core systems for games , writen by a gamer. I have the awsome luck of being able to pit fx55/x800xt/2gigram , against 4400+/7800gtx/2gigsram , and the results are definitive.
Offline in games like HL2 , fx55 all the way , smashes the 4400+.
ONLINE in anygame the dual is WAY better, it pulls the same fps, the core is .4 difference.
go dual core everytime from 1005 onward..............

But did you pit your fx55/x800xt/2gig against your 4400+/x800xt/2gig ?? Also the review quoted above doesn't compare single core to the dual core with the same driver. At least thats what I got from the article. They just ran the new driver with a 3800+ duallie and it was faster than the old driver so it must be the dual core responsible?? What about running the new driver on a same speed single core?

 

[Unkno]

Originally posted by: the Chase

Originally posted by: the splat in the hat
ignore people whom dont own one would be my advise.
How can they know the true difference ?
Say what you will, but after my fx55, this dual 4400+ PWNS it, online gaming is in a realm of its own on dual core systems, single core will mostly be recommended by SINGLE CORE owners. Most dual core owners actually own both single and dual core systems, and to date 99 per centy that have them use THEM as there games pc.
I havent seen very many bad wright ups on dual core systems for games , writen by a gamer. I have the awsome luck of being able to pit fx55/x800xt/2gigram , against 4400+/7800gtx/2gigsram , and the results are definitive.
Offline in games like HL2 , fx55 all the way , smashes the 4400+.
ONLINE in anygame the dual is WAY better, it pulls the same fps, the core is .4 difference.
go dual core everytime from 1005 onward..............

But did you pit your fx55/x800xt/2gig against your 4400+/x800xt/2gig ?? Also the review quoted above doesn't compare single core to the dual core with the same driver. At least thats what I got from the article. They just ran the new driver with a 3800+ duallie and it was faster than the old driver so it must be the dual core responsible?? What about running the new driver on a same speed single core?

Somebody in the thread where i linked above tested the difference from 5.11 (non-multi-threaded) to 5.13 with a single core. There were no performance boost.

 

[Deathonastick]

Originally posted by: AkumaX
i think the biggest bottleneck are hdds. if you had like photoshop running on one hdd and WoW on another, the system would be seamless

Now you're talking to me! I'm seriously lusting after a 4X0 15k SCSI RAID setup. I'm gonna carjack Santa this year even if it puts me in the poorhouse. Just call me Overkill.

 

[the Chase]

Originally posted by: Unkno

Originally posted by: the Chase

Originally posted by: the splat in the hat
ignore people whom dont own one would be my advise.
How can they know the true difference ?
Say what you will, but after my fx55, this dual 4400+ PWNS it, online gaming is in a realm of its own on dual core systems, single core will mostly be recommended by SINGLE CORE owners. Most dual core owners actually own both single and dual core systems, and to date 99 per centy that have them use THEM as there games pc.
I havent seen very many bad wright ups on dual core systems for games , writen by a gamer. I have the awsome luck of being able to pit fx55/x800xt/2gigram , against 4400+/7800gtx/2gigsram , and the results are definitive.
Offline in games like HL2 , fx55 all the way , smashes the 4400+.
ONLINE in anygame the dual is WAY better, it pulls the same fps, the core is .4 difference.
go dual core everytime from 1005 onward..............

But did you pit your fx55/x800xt/2gig against your 4400+/x800xt/2gig ?? Also the review quoted above doesn't compare single core to the dual core with the same driver. At least thats what I got from the article. They just ran the new driver with a 3800+ duallie and it was faster than the old driver so it must be the dual core responsible?? What about running the new driver on a same speed single core?

Somebody in the thread where i linked above tested the difference from 5.11 (non-multi-threaded) to 5.13 with a single core. There were no performance boost.

Yeah that was me. I wish I had a dual core to compare though. I backtracked in that other thread as I could be wrong- just wish these web sites would go through the trouble of running both processors to have some ryme and reason to where exactly the gains are coming from. Tempted to buy a dual core chip just to finally find this out.

 

[aniruddha23]

Any idea when we will start seeing games whihc support SMP. Like when tehy actually start using teh dual or quad cores?

Also how much performance boost can we expect on an average. I know teh graphic card is more responsible for that but there should be some increase.

 

[NaOH]

I bought my dual core mainly to future proof. It runs my games perfectly as good as any single core. The only difference is that teh clock speeds are lower. But you know what? A little overclocking and that problem goes away. Also, I run a lot of programs in the background while gaming. Now I don't have to turn off norton, aim, firefox, etc when i fire up CSs or WoW. I also encode a lot and it practically dropped my encode times by 50% using CCE SP and dvdrb. So for all you haters who haven't used a dual core for longer than a week, quit bashing. I don't see how there can be any negatives when you are able to have 2 physical cores. It's like comparing having 1 smart person to manage a whole business or to split it up the business among 2 normal people (which you can replace with 2 smart people *overclock).